So, under your reasoning, if I "admit" black is white, it's not considered lying for you to agree that black is white where it suits your own purposes, even though you know (or should have known) it's not true?
If you admit that black is white, and I agree that black is white, and the rest of the civilized world agrees that black is white, then yes, black would be white, and you wouldn't have lied.
You're confusing common knowledge with the facts.
So you're saying that Saddam was mistaken when he said he had WMD's? Maybe he wasn't given the proper facts? Maybe Hans Blitz wasn't given the proper facts when he went and saw, first-hand, the WMD's? Maybe the UN was mistaken when they said Saddam has WMD's and must disarm immediately... 18 times over 12 years? Was Saddam given faulty facts when he USED his WMD's against his own people to kll tens of thousands?
So, when those two goals are incompatible, which should prevail? It's important to point out that we can't always agree on what will "make the world a better place", but we have a much better handle on what it means to "uphold the Constitution", which is why we wrote it down in the first place. It is the fundamental tenet of a society governed by law.
I was expecting you to bite on this, so how did Bush not uphold the Constitution, or not make the world a better place? At the very least, we kept the world the same, but we certainly didn't make it worse.
You're asserting a negative. While we all (I hope) support the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you cannot bolster a claim of innocence with a lack of proven guilt.
Asserting a negative in this respect is possible because nobody can contend any differently. No interns have come forward. While I may very well be wrong in saying that he never screwed an intern, all the evidence (which may be circumstantial, I'll admit) suggests that I'm correct.
It's not a question of weather he's better than the joker he's replacing, but a question of weather he's good enough.
Don't get me wrong, I never said he was perfect. He's done quite a few things I don't agree with (a Department of Homeland Defense? WTF is the Department of Defense for then?).
I know I said I wasn't going to get into a political argument... but what can I say, it's just so fun.:-)
I just had a slightly offtopic thought. If a rich terrorist hires other terrorists to do their dirty work, according to Slashdot, are they more, or less evil than a corporation that does basically the same thing, but doesn't kill people? And technically, rather than "terrorist organization", shouldn't it be "terrorist corporation"? Just an idea...
Well, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but it's not my problem, and security settings (often applied inappropriately or inadvertently) cause me a lot of hassles.
Security (in this sense) is there to hamper attempts at easy manipulation of data. Security is the opposite of usability. Usability requires easy access to changes in settings and data, which is the exact thing you want to avoid with security. Just because you're irritated at the nature of electronic security doesn't mean Adobe not fixing a problem is a good thing.
Actually, if such a change to a contract was made it would be easy to prove when it came to light and grounds for criminal charges, (forgery, fraud, whatever). The same as someone making changes to a paper contract. This is a case of using technical means to "enforce" legalities, and in the process inconveniencing the vast majority of PDF users who use it to transfer and use artwork in publishing. Security was an afterthought, and has never worked well, and I'm happy with that.
Sadly, in this industry, security is usually an afterthought. I like the way Adobe implemented the security on Acrobat, but I think they should fix the problems with it rather than suing the person that discovered them. Acrobat works perfectly fine for the purpose for which it was created, which is creating files, then securing them, and sending them to people. If the "securing" stage is too irritating or annoying, why don't you use Microsoft Word or OpenOffice Writer or something that doesn't have those options?
This could be easily automated...
There are many things in this world that can easily be done, but shouldn't have to be. For instance, my direct supervisor is a bit of an ass. He makes decisions based on random thoughts, and ignores facts that contradict whatever he's thinking at the time. He blames everyone else for his mistakes, then takes credit for other people's work. To put it simply, he's a bad supervisor. However, in this organization, there's someone higher up on the ladder than him that I can go to for resolution to problems that arise. He's a very nice guy, and easy to talk to, but often doesn't want to make waves. It would be easy for him to simply ignore the problems and hope they go away, but that's not what should be done. The similarities are striking. They're both problems that never should have arisen in the first place. They're both problems that are relatively easily fixed. And finally, they're both problems where one party decides to ignore them and hope they go away. Just because a problem is easy to work around doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with directly.
Mac hardware may not double every two years, because nobody's making the software the necessitate the speed and performance increase. Just like in Linux, games are practically non-existent (except for 6 months to a year after release), and gamers are the testbed for almost any new advanced in hardware. If Apple had a Game Development Department that would concentrate on creating wondeful games exclusively for Macs, then I'm sure more people would consider buying them... even if they do look like little plastic toddler toys.
If Macs work for you, great. They just don't work for most other people. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, because I know first-hand how fanatical Mac people can be. However, I would challenge you to convince others that Apple is the way to go. Most other people use Windows, and I use both Windows (necessity) and Linux, so if you can convince everyone else, myself included, that Macs offer everything we need and want for the same (or preferably less) cost, then I'll switch. Until then, all I can say is you're the odd man out... not me.
We should rightly be concerned when a president mis-represents the truth to avoid political scandal.
I'm not going to get into a political argument here, but Clinton lied under oath, after swearing to tell "nothing but the truth" so help him God. That's not a political scandal, that's perjury, which is a felony, punishable by prison time.
We should be even more concerned when it is done for the purpose of taking the country into War.
What did Bush lie about exactly? Even Saddam admitted he had WMD's. France, Germany, Russia, the UN, etc. all agreed on it. This is all common knowledge to those who are open-minded enough to look at the facts.
Should we place the President under oath before things like press conferences and the State Of The Union address, or should the Oath Of Office be enough?
The President should be honest in his intentions, actions, and motives. In everything he does, he should always seek the best for the American people and the nation (which isn't always the same thing). The President should always uphold the Constitution, and try to make the world a better place. I can think of nothing that Bush has done to contradict his high status or office. He's never screwed an intern, or "lost" important financial papers that were dangerous to him. He's not perfect, but he's definitely a step (or a giant leap) in the right direction from the last President.
I have to make a comment on caring more about the environment than people's lives. This is an instance where it's a pretty clear-cut decision: the environment, or people's lives. The environment has gotten along just fine for 10,000,000 years before we started going into space, and now we have to endanger lives because we want care too much about the environment. It's already been proven that there is NO global warming, yet we still hear about that... now we are forced to choose between spending more money and endangering lives to be "friendly" to the environment. What a sad world we live in.
Since when is "lying to...the American people" grounds for dismissal? I thought that only happened if there was some intern and a blue dress involved...
To be fair, the intern and the dress weren't the grounds for dismissal. It was the perjury that was the problem. I don't care who sleeps with who, or what an intern puts into her own mouth, as long as the person in question can still do their job... but when that person gets in the witness chair and lies under oath, I have a problem with it.
I certainly don't mean to trivialize your argument, but I tend to think the kind folks at NASA have at least one reason for not requiring a cooling maneuver upon reentry. I understand that you may believe it could save some lives and money in this instance, but overall, it might have done the opposite. The only people that can answer your proposal would be the Rocket Scientists at NASA, or someone who's a home-study Rocket Scientist, although I doubt it.
There was a game back in the day called Life and Death, which required the player to go through several operations which were, for its day, pretty graphic. I could never get past the first one, since the game was so damn hard (I didn't have the manual), but I remember having to cut the person's chest with a scalpel, and if you were just a tiny bit off, he'd bleed to death and you'd lose.
I can't speak for the parent, but I'd guess it was the high cost of the proprietary, closed-architecture hardware, coupled with the lack of standards-based applications (up until OS X, which was too little, too late).
This "vulnerability" means that you can run plugins WITHOUT having them signed by Adobe.
THAT is the problem. Companies use Adobe Acrobat to create forms that should not be altered outside the company, like contracts, and send them to their customers to fill out. If said company can no longer trust that their customers won't be able to change text in their contract without notifying them, then Adobe Acrobat is completely meaningless.
My last job was at an ISP that would create contracts and accounting papers in Acrobat, then send them to people to fill in certain information. Sometimes, the documents could be 30-50 pages in length. It obviously would take quite a long time to manually go through and verify that nothing inappropriate (i.e. the cost of getting out of the contract) would be changed. Of course, in that case, the company deserved whatever it got, but that's beside the point.
If future commercial software relies on the law for its security rather than actual software security, this may be a good thing for open source. When that happens, we really can then say that OSS is truly more secure.
Well, you COULD say that, but then you'd be violating the DMCA, and they'd have to put you away.
Fortunately for both of us, there are still plenty of people in this country that want to turn it around to the way it's supposed to be.
I still have hope for this country. I think we'll end the downward spiral, but not before some extremely difficult political battles against those who think socialism and communism are great examples of modern government in action (like our friend I'm debating here). There's still hope for our generation... As a friend of mine used to say, "You have the faith, you just need to use it, sayeth the Lord." I know it doesn't make much sense, but he was an eccentric.
That's my point. The 18th amendment was passed, even though it was stupid, and didn't make much sense... just like the 16th. My point is that a few of the amendments to the Constitution are stupid, ill-conceived, and are passed even though they make no sense. In the case of the 16th amendment, it was passed even though it contradicted Article I, section 9, clause 4.
I can't decide if you're amazingly intelligent, or obscenely stupid. Although it hurts my head to think of it, maybe both.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #21
In the end, it may not matter what you or I think about the 16th amendment and its Constitutionality (as relating to the intentions and purposes of the original Constitution and the Founding Fathers), because there's a movement now that's gaining quite a bit of steam to repeal it anyway. My question to you is simple. Why would the legislature ever want to repeal a Constitutional Amendment? Because it isn't consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution? Because it's simply too much trouble to enforce (like Prohibition)? Because it's just plain silly in these times? Just think about that for a minute, and ask yourself why Prohibition was passed in the first place, then ask yourself why the Income Tax amendment was passed, especially since it contradicted a previous article.
OK, we'll go through it step by step for you, and I'll even use different examples since you seem to have something against Mr. Wadsworth from Ohio, and Mr. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvania. I'll even use short examples that even your feeble brain MIGHT be able to comprehend.
On October 1, 2002, Edward Bruce Baker of Altamonte Springs, Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time. During 1994, Baker received gross income of approximately $231,339 and in 1995 received approximately $281,824. For both of these years, Baker failed to file returns. Baker was found guilty by a Jury on July 22, 2002.
That is the entirety of the section devoted to Mr. Baker of Florida. No Fraud. No Laundering. Only failing to file income taxes, twice. One year in PRISON for each time he failed to file federal income taxes. Let me put it this way. Fail to file for 1 year = 1 year in prison.
On November 20, 2002, in the Eastern District of Texas, Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996 and 1997 tax returns. According to the Indictment filed on December 4, 2001, Brooks was a self-employed with his principal place of business in Jacksonville, Cherokee County, Texas.
That again, is the entirety of his section. No Fraud. No laundering. No murder, rape, pillaging, or other idiocy. He was found guilty of "failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns" and got "21 months in prison". An average of 7 months per year for not filing. Again, failing to file for 1 year = 7 months in prison.
On March 21, 2002, Dr. Joseph Fanfan, Jr., pled guilty to failing to file federal income tax returns for 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. According to the indictment charged on October 11, 2001, Dr. Fanfan earned gross income of approximately $150,956, $199,306, $221,005 and $266,452 in 1994-1997, respectively. Dr. Fanfan was sentenced on July 26, 2002, receiving 60 months probation.
60 months probation isn't prison, but it's one step away from it. 4 years of failing to file = 60 months probation.
On April 29, 2002, in Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Clyde Swisher, a Missouri attorney, was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison for failing to file federal income tax returns for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Swisher received nearly $1.4 million in the three year period.
In January 2002, a jury deliberated approximately one hour after four days of trial. During the trial, Swisher and his attorney argued numerous "tax-protest" defenses, including that there was no statutory requirement to file income taxes. During the sentencing hearing, the Judge expressed that it is important that the public recognize the failure of "tax-protester" arguments and that the maximum sentence that he imposed should reflect as much.
Just so you don't lose count, that's 36 months for failing to file for 3 years. Once again, 1 year of failing to file = 1 year in prison.
Maybe you'd be interested in this page. I summarise (it's a graph, few words for reading):
Fiscal Year 2003 (9 months) as of 6/30/2003
Prosecution Recommendations: 223
Indictments / Informations: 160
Convictions: 172
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 82.6%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 43
Fiscal Year 2002
Prosecution Recommendations: 269
Indictments / Informations: 233
Convictions: 227
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 88.1%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 49
Fiscal Year 2001
Prosecution Recommendations: 244
Indictments / Informations:
As you've obviously flunked 3rd grade let me explain it to you; Constitutional amendments are part of the Constitution. THEREFORE THEY CAN'T BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CAN THEY?
ANY addition to the Constitution has to be approved by the legislature. The Legislature is SUPPOSED to review an Amendment to make sure it's Constitutional in its direct, and indirect consequences. I could almost understand if it was an addition that had indirect contradictions, but it has glaring ones. It was Unconstitutional when it was proposed, it was Unconstitutional when it was approved, and it remains Unconstitutional today. Period, end of story. You're pathetic whining about Constitutional Amendments not being Constitutional proves only that you're the idiot that doesn't know any history. Obviously you can drink alcohol, can't you? Yet that was an Amendment back in 1920's.
I actually checked many of those examples you linked to. Almost without exception they dealt with people who had consciously defrauded the government by hiding assets, etc. I'll state it again, there is a difference between not paying your taxes and filing false information.
You are lying. Those were DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE IRS, ON THE IRS.GOV WEBSITE. Not only that, the page title is "Significant Case Summaries: Nonfiler Enforcement". That doesn't say "Signicant Case Summaries: Fraud Enforcement". That page is here. Either you're lying, or you can't read. You want me to print the entire list? Well suck it up. You owe it. I know you don't want to owe it. Neither the government, nor I care.
Quote from the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. The 16th Amendment changed that to allow for a "graduated" income tax, that is CLEARLY UN-Constitutional. You obviously do NOT know what you're talking about because you give no examples, no evidence, and no intelligent points to discuss and argue in a civil manner. I gave you multiple examples from the IRS dictating their powers, by way of specific cases with dates, names, and time sentenced, and you say the equivalent of "nuh uh!".
Which should be funded by local funds, gotten by local taxes from local citizens. The federal government has no place in local education.
...drive on public roads with a car that pollutes the public's air...
Which should be funded by way of tolls. Tolls should be stopped when the road has been paid for. As far as air, when did anyone lay claim to air? Did we suddenly move to Mars where air is a luxury? The air is fine. If it wasn't, our average lifespan wouldn't be twice as long as it was a couple hundred years ago.
...have water, electricity...
Water isn't taxed. I pay for my water, depending on my usage. If I didn't use any water, I wouldn't get a bill. Same thing with the electricity.
... and the mail delivered to your house, every day.
Which can, should, and have been privately funded. Ever hear of the Pony Express? Privately funded, and was successful until the Civil War started.
How do you think the (GD, tyranical, POS, worthless) government pays for all this, advertising? If you want to live like a libertarian, move to Afghanistan, dude.
If you want to live in a government controlled nightmare, move to China. I'll stay here where we at least PRETEND to still be a free country.
The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.
At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:
Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.
You've completely and utterly missed the point.
No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.
I was referring to the more general issue, which is whether the government should regulate internet usage.
It seems they wish to restrict "everyone", while saying it's for the "children".
Exactly. I was up last night until 11pm playing Star Wars: Galaxies, and I still got up and came to work. It's not my choice, exactly... I'd rather be sleeping, but I know that if I want to keep this job, and get paid, I had better show up.
As of yet, the US government hasn't... but who's going to stop them when they start executing people? Can't you see the timeline?
Step 1. Outlaw guns.
Step 2. Begin executions. Claim it's for "the common good".
Step 3. Outlaw elections.
Step 4. Kill anyone who opposes.
There are people that are working on Step 1 right now. God only knows what could happen between Steps 3 and 4, or afterwards. After they have your guns, there's not a damn thing you can do to stop them. You think you'll march on Washington DC? Right up against their tanks? Don't you remember Tienamen Square in China, or most of WW2, or Iraq even? If you don't own a gun, you can't protect yourself, and they will kill you. The government IS INHERENTLY the enemy, and they will kill you if you can't/don't protect yourself, and your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the arguments of both sides. I don't believe there is any global warming.
Global Warming or Hot Air?
The Leipzig Declaratioin
Desperate Times Call for Desperate Acts
Global Warming? Nevermind!
Cooling Off on Global Warming
Why the Kyoto Greenhouse Gases Accord is Full of Hot Air
Global Warming Hype Heats Up
Global Warming and the Media Elite
The Heat is Online
Numerous Articles on Global Warming
Read those articles, and do your own research. Don't trust me... look into it yourself, and you'll see the truth.
So, under your reasoning, if I "admit" black is white, it's not considered lying for you to agree that black is white where it suits your own purposes, even though you know (or should have known) it's not true?
:-)
If you admit that black is white, and I agree that black is white, and the rest of the civilized world agrees that black is white, then yes, black would be white, and you wouldn't have lied.
You're confusing common knowledge with the facts.
So you're saying that Saddam was mistaken when he said he had WMD's? Maybe he wasn't given the proper facts? Maybe Hans Blitz wasn't given the proper facts when he went and saw, first-hand, the WMD's? Maybe the UN was mistaken when they said Saddam has WMD's and must disarm immediately... 18 times over 12 years? Was Saddam given faulty facts when he USED his WMD's against his own people to kll tens of thousands?
So, when those two goals are incompatible, which should prevail? It's important to point out that we can't always agree on what will "make the world a better place", but we have a much better handle on what it means to "uphold the Constitution", which is why we wrote it down in the first place. It is the fundamental tenet of a society governed by law.
I was expecting you to bite on this, so how did Bush not uphold the Constitution, or not make the world a better place? At the very least, we kept the world the same, but we certainly didn't make it worse.
You're asserting a negative. While we all (I hope) support the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you cannot bolster a claim of innocence with a lack of proven guilt.
Asserting a negative in this respect is possible because nobody can contend any differently. No interns have come forward. While I may very well be wrong in saying that he never screwed an intern, all the evidence (which may be circumstantial, I'll admit) suggests that I'm correct.
It's not a question of weather he's better than the joker he's replacing, but a question of weather he's good enough.
Don't get me wrong, I never said he was perfect. He's done quite a few things I don't agree with (a Department of Homeland Defense? WTF is the Department of Defense for then?).
I know I said I wasn't going to get into a political argument... but what can I say, it's just so fun.
I just had a slightly offtopic thought. If a rich terrorist hires other terrorists to do their dirty work, according to Slashdot, are they more, or less evil than a corporation that does basically the same thing, but doesn't kill people? And technically, rather than "terrorist organization", shouldn't it be "terrorist corporation"? Just an idea...
Well, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but it's not my problem, and security settings (often applied inappropriately or inadvertently) cause me a lot of hassles.
Security (in this sense) is there to hamper attempts at easy manipulation of data. Security is the opposite of usability. Usability requires easy access to changes in settings and data, which is the exact thing you want to avoid with security. Just because you're irritated at the nature of electronic security doesn't mean Adobe not fixing a problem is a good thing.
Actually, if such a change to a contract was made it would be easy to prove when it came to light and grounds for criminal charges, (forgery, fraud, whatever). The same as someone making changes to a paper contract. This is a case of using technical means to "enforce" legalities, and in the process inconveniencing the vast majority of PDF users who use it to transfer and use artwork in publishing. Security was an afterthought, and has never worked well, and I'm happy with that.
Sadly, in this industry, security is usually an afterthought. I like the way Adobe implemented the security on Acrobat, but I think they should fix the problems with it rather than suing the person that discovered them. Acrobat works perfectly fine for the purpose for which it was created, which is creating files, then securing them, and sending them to people. If the "securing" stage is too irritating or annoying, why don't you use Microsoft Word or OpenOffice Writer or something that doesn't have those options?
This could be easily automated...
There are many things in this world that can easily be done, but shouldn't have to be. For instance, my direct supervisor is a bit of an ass. He makes decisions based on random thoughts, and ignores facts that contradict whatever he's thinking at the time. He blames everyone else for his mistakes, then takes credit for other people's work. To put it simply, he's a bad supervisor. However, in this organization, there's someone higher up on the ladder than him that I can go to for resolution to problems that arise. He's a very nice guy, and easy to talk to, but often doesn't want to make waves. It would be easy for him to simply ignore the problems and hope they go away, but that's not what should be done. The similarities are striking. They're both problems that never should have arisen in the first place. They're both problems that are relatively easily fixed. And finally, they're both problems where one party decides to ignore them and hope they go away. Just because a problem is easy to work around doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with directly.
Mac hardware may not double every two years, because nobody's making the software the necessitate the speed and performance increase. Just like in Linux, games are practically non-existent (except for 6 months to a year after release), and gamers are the testbed for almost any new advanced in hardware. If Apple had a Game Development Department that would concentrate on creating wondeful games exclusively for Macs, then I'm sure more people would consider buying them... even if they do look like little plastic toddler toys.
If Macs work for you, great. They just don't work for most other people. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, because I know first-hand how fanatical Mac people can be. However, I would challenge you to convince others that Apple is the way to go. Most other people use Windows, and I use both Windows (necessity) and Linux, so if you can convince everyone else, myself included, that Macs offer everything we need and want for the same (or preferably less) cost, then I'll switch. Until then, all I can say is you're the odd man out... not me.
We should rightly be concerned when a president mis-represents the truth to avoid political scandal.
I'm not going to get into a political argument here, but Clinton lied under oath, after swearing to tell "nothing but the truth" so help him God. That's not a political scandal, that's perjury, which is a felony, punishable by prison time.
We should be even more concerned when it is done for the purpose of taking the country into War.
What did Bush lie about exactly? Even Saddam admitted he had WMD's. France, Germany, Russia, the UN, etc. all agreed on it. This is all common knowledge to those who are open-minded enough to look at the facts.
Should we place the President under oath before things like press conferences and the State Of The Union address, or should the Oath Of Office be enough?
The President should be honest in his intentions, actions, and motives. In everything he does, he should always seek the best for the American people and the nation (which isn't always the same thing). The President should always uphold the Constitution, and try to make the world a better place. I can think of nothing that Bush has done to contradict his high status or office. He's never screwed an intern, or "lost" important financial papers that were dangerous to him. He's not perfect, but he's definitely a step (or a giant leap) in the right direction from the last President.
I have to make a comment on caring more about the environment than people's lives. This is an instance where it's a pretty clear-cut decision: the environment, or people's lives. The environment has gotten along just fine for 10,000,000 years before we started going into space, and now we have to endanger lives because we want care too much about the environment. It's already been proven that there is NO global warming, yet we still hear about that... now we are forced to choose between spending more money and endangering lives to be "friendly" to the environment. What a sad world we live in.
Since when is "lying to...the American people" grounds for dismissal? I thought that only happened if there was some intern and a blue dress involved...
To be fair, the intern and the dress weren't the grounds for dismissal. It was the perjury that was the problem. I don't care who sleeps with who, or what an intern puts into her own mouth, as long as the person in question can still do their job... but when that person gets in the witness chair and lies under oath, I have a problem with it.
I certainly don't mean to trivialize your argument, but I tend to think the kind folks at NASA have at least one reason for not requiring a cooling maneuver upon reentry. I understand that you may believe it could save some lives and money in this instance, but overall, it might have done the opposite. The only people that can answer your proposal would be the Rocket Scientists at NASA, or someone who's a home-study Rocket Scientist, although I doubt it.
There was a game back in the day called Life and Death, which required the player to go through several operations which were, for its day, pretty graphic. I could never get past the first one, since the game was so damn hard (I didn't have the manual), but I remember having to cut the person's chest with a scalpel, and if you were just a tiny bit off, he'd bleed to death and you'd lose.
Anybody else remember that game?
I can't speak for the parent, but I'd guess it was the high cost of the proprietary, closed-architecture hardware, coupled with the lack of standards-based applications (up until OS X, which was too little, too late).
This "vulnerability" means that you can run plugins WITHOUT having them signed by Adobe.
THAT is the problem. Companies use Adobe Acrobat to create forms that should not be altered outside the company, like contracts, and send them to their customers to fill out. If said company can no longer trust that their customers won't be able to change text in their contract without notifying them, then Adobe Acrobat is completely meaningless.
My last job was at an ISP that would create contracts and accounting papers in Acrobat, then send them to people to fill in certain information. Sometimes, the documents could be 30-50 pages in length. It obviously would take quite a long time to manually go through and verify that nothing inappropriate (i.e. the cost of getting out of the contract) would be changed. Of course, in that case, the company deserved whatever it got, but that's beside the point.
If future commercial software relies on the law for its security rather than actual software security, this may be a good thing for open source. When that happens, we really can then say that OSS is truly more secure.
Well, you COULD say that, but then you'd be violating the DMCA, and they'd have to put you away.
Amendment != Revision. What's so hard to understand about this?
Fortunately for both of us, there are still plenty of people in this country that want to turn it around to the way it's supposed to be.
I still have hope for this country. I think we'll end the downward spiral, but not before some extremely difficult political battles against those who think socialism and communism are great examples of modern government in action (like our friend I'm debating here). There's still hope for our generation... As a friend of mine used to say, "You have the faith, you just need to use it, sayeth the Lord." I know it doesn't make much sense, but he was an eccentric.
I'm so glad someone else is reading this. It makes me feel like I haven't wasted half the day talking to this idiot.
I suppose sometimes you just have to sit back and say, "Ya know what? You're not important enough for me to try to convince." Oh well.
That's my point. The 18th amendment was passed, even though it was stupid, and didn't make much sense... just like the 16th. My point is that a few of the amendments to the Constitution are stupid, ill-conceived, and are passed even though they make no sense. In the case of the 16th amendment, it was passed even though it contradicted Article I, section 9, clause 4.
I can't decide if you're amazingly intelligent, or obscenely stupid. Although it hurts my head to think of it, maybe both.
.'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #21
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four
In the end, it may not matter what you or I think about the 16th amendment and its Constitutionality (as relating to the intentions and purposes of the original Constitution and the Founding Fathers), because there's a movement now that's gaining quite a bit of steam to repeal it anyway. My question to you is simple. Why would the legislature ever want to repeal a Constitutional Amendment? Because it isn't consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution? Because it's simply too much trouble to enforce (like Prohibition)? Because it's just plain silly in these times? Just think about that for a minute, and ask yourself why Prohibition was passed in the first place, then ask yourself why the Income Tax amendment was passed, especially since it contradicted a previous article.
OK, we'll go through it step by step for you, and I'll even use different examples since you seem to have something against Mr. Wadsworth from Ohio, and Mr. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvania. I'll even use short examples that even your feeble brain MIGHT be able to comprehend.
On October 1, 2002, Edward Bruce Baker of Altamonte Springs, Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time. During 1994, Baker received gross income of approximately $231,339 and in 1995 received approximately $281,824. For both of these years, Baker failed to file returns. Baker was found guilty by a Jury on July 22, 2002.
That is the entirety of the section devoted to Mr. Baker of Florida. No Fraud. No Laundering. Only failing to file income taxes, twice. One year in PRISON for each time he failed to file federal income taxes. Let me put it this way. Fail to file for 1 year = 1 year in prison.
On November 20, 2002, in the Eastern District of Texas, Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996 and 1997 tax returns. According to the Indictment filed on December 4, 2001, Brooks was a self-employed with his principal place of business in Jacksonville, Cherokee County, Texas.
That again, is the entirety of his section. No Fraud. No laundering. No murder, rape, pillaging, or other idiocy. He was found guilty of "failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns" and got "21 months in prison". An average of 7 months per year for not filing. Again, failing to file for 1 year = 7 months in prison.
On March 21, 2002, Dr. Joseph Fanfan, Jr., pled guilty to failing to file federal income tax returns for 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. According to the indictment charged on October 11, 2001, Dr. Fanfan earned gross income of approximately $150,956, $199,306, $221,005 and $266,452 in 1994-1997, respectively. Dr. Fanfan was sentenced on July 26, 2002, receiving 60 months probation.
60 months probation isn't prison, but it's one step away from it. 4 years of failing to file = 60 months probation.
On April 29, 2002, in Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Clyde Swisher, a Missouri attorney, was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison for failing to file federal income tax returns for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Swisher received nearly $1.4 million in the three year period.
In January 2002, a jury deliberated approximately one hour after four days of trial. During the trial, Swisher and his attorney argued numerous "tax-protest" defenses, including that there was no statutory requirement to file income taxes. During the sentencing hearing, the Judge expressed that it is important that the public recognize the failure of "tax-protester" arguments and that the maximum sentence that he imposed should reflect as much.
Just so you don't lose count, that's 36 months for failing to file for 3 years. Once again, 1 year of failing to file = 1 year in prison.
Maybe you'd be interested in this page. I summarise (it's a graph, few words for reading):
Fiscal Year 2003 (9 months) as of 6/30/2003
Prosecution Recommendations: 223
Indictments / Informations: 160
Convictions: 172
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 82.6%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 43
Fiscal Year 2002
Prosecution Recommendations: 269
Indictments / Informations: 233
Convictions: 227
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 88.1%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 49
Fiscal Year 2001
Prosecution Recommendations: 244
Indictments / Informations:
As you've obviously flunked 3rd grade let me explain it to you; Constitutional amendments are part of the Constitution. THEREFORE THEY CAN'T BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CAN THEY?
ANY addition to the Constitution has to be approved by the legislature. The Legislature is SUPPOSED to review an Amendment to make sure it's Constitutional in its direct, and indirect consequences. I could almost understand if it was an addition that had indirect contradictions, but it has glaring ones. It was Unconstitutional when it was proposed, it was Unconstitutional when it was approved, and it remains Unconstitutional today. Period, end of story. You're pathetic whining about Constitutional Amendments not being Constitutional proves only that you're the idiot that doesn't know any history. Obviously you can drink alcohol, can't you? Yet that was an Amendment back in 1920's.
I actually checked many of those examples you linked to. Almost without exception they dealt with people who had consciously defrauded the government by hiding assets, etc. I'll state it again, there is a difference between not paying your taxes and filing false information.
You are lying. Those were DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE IRS, ON THE IRS.GOV WEBSITE. Not only that, the page title is "Significant Case Summaries: Nonfiler Enforcement". That doesn't say "Signicant Case Summaries: Fraud Enforcement". That page is here. Either you're lying, or you can't read. You want me to print the entire list?
Well suck it up. You owe it. I know you don't want to owe it. Neither the government, nor I care.
Quote from the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. The 16th Amendment changed that to allow for a "graduated" income tax, that is CLEARLY UN-Constitutional. You obviously do NOT know what you're talking about because you give no examples, no evidence, and no intelligent points to discuss and argue in a civil manner. I gave you multiple examples from the IRS dictating their powers, by way of specific cases with dates, names, and time sentenced, and you say the equivalent of "nuh uh!".
Chances are, you went to public schools...
...drive on public roads with a car that pollutes the public's air...
...have water, electricity...
... and the mail delivered to your house, every day.
Which should be funded by local funds, gotten by local taxes from local citizens. The federal government has no place in local education.
Which should be funded by way of tolls. Tolls should be stopped when the road has been paid for. As far as air, when did anyone lay claim to air? Did we suddenly move to Mars where air is a luxury? The air is fine. If it wasn't, our average lifespan wouldn't be twice as long as it was a couple hundred years ago.
Water isn't taxed. I pay for my water, depending on my usage. If I didn't use any water, I wouldn't get a bill. Same thing with the electricity.
Which can, should, and have been privately funded. Ever hear of the Pony Express? Privately funded, and was successful until the Civil War started.
How do you think the (GD, tyranical, POS, worthless) government pays for all this, advertising? If you want to live like a libertarian, move to Afghanistan, dude.
If you want to live in a government controlled nightmare, move to China. I'll stay here where we at least PRETEND to still be a free country.
The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.
At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:
William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".
Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".
Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."
Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.
"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."
Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.
On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.
Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.
You've completely and utterly missed the point.
No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.
I was referring to the more general issue, which is whether the government should regulate internet usage.
It seems they wish to restrict "everyone", while saying it's for the "children".
Exactly. I was up last night until 11pm playing Star Wars: Galaxies, and I still got up and came to work. It's not my choice, exactly... I'd rather be sleeping, but I know that if I want to keep this job, and get paid, I had better show up.
As of yet, the US government hasn't... but who's going to stop them when they start executing people? Can't you see the timeline?
Step 1. Outlaw guns.
Step 2. Begin executions. Claim it's for "the common good".
Step 3. Outlaw elections.
Step 4. Kill anyone who opposes.
There are people that are working on Step 1 right now. God only knows what could happen between Steps 3 and 4, or afterwards. After they have your guns, there's not a damn thing you can do to stop them. You think you'll march on Washington DC? Right up against their tanks? Don't you remember Tienamen Square in China, or most of WW2, or Iraq even? If you don't own a gun, you can't protect yourself, and they will kill you. The government IS INHERENTLY the enemy, and they will kill you if you can't/don't protect yourself, and your rights.