Digital sensors in cameras essentially always have a UV/IR filter built in (UV/IR filters for DSLRs are really just lens protectors).
No, they don't. That's why there is an IR filter you can remove in front of them. It's buried in the camera itself in most cases, but many of the cameras I've used (machine vision/scientific, in particular) have the IR filter easily accessible and removable. And many of the color cameras I've used outdoors now have very odd colors because the UV has deteriorated the sensor's color filters for the R, G, and B.
Why make two kinds of sensors when you can make one and then put a $0.50 filter in front depending on the use?
Its easy to remove the IR/UV filters in a camera...
Not if the filter is built into the sensor, it isn't. That's why they don't build them into the sensor. If it's easy to remove the filters in the sensor, I challenge you to remove the Bayer filters from a color sensor and turn the camera into true monochrome.
But you're right, this stuff isn't new simply because it is so easy to take the filters out of the camera. I've had mono cameras I've had to put IR filters in because the vendor didn't (but does for the same model in color because without it the colors are off.) I've got one on my desk now that has no IR filters but does have an IR pass, and the images are very, well, they look funny if you don't know what is happening.
Sounds like you didn't comprehend a word of my previous post...
Looks like someone didn't understand something...
Most people use the wireless AP their ISP gives them.
I don't care what most people do. I was explicit in talking about how this "service" would interact with what I do.
No extra channels needed. No possibility of conflicts.
Until it lands on top of one of the two channels I'm using and then there will be a conflict. A conflict I won't be able to prevent them from creating and will have to spend my time solving. And then solve again the next time it happens. And then when my neighbor gets his Comcast "free" wifi box and either one of his lands on top of mine.
At that point I go to HSMM and don't care about the low power interference.
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I understand that it is fun and convenient to ignore some of the words when you want to make a good rant, but you should please note that I was explicit in saying what the purpose of the photos I did not find invasive was. You might as well come up with some fanciful use like editing random people's heads onto other people's bodies in sex tapes as another use for DMV photos and then rant at me about how I said that such a use wouldn't be invasive or unacceptable. You'd be just as accurate and just as honest.
I was pretty explicit in saying that I did not find invasive the ability of police to verify an identity using stored DMV photos. The person to whom I replied, which wasn't you, claimed that such use was outside the scope of the original photo, and I responded to that specific claim.
Maybe you just don't know what is and isn't invasive or private?
Right. Now you're trying the decrepit "if only you was as smart as me you'd know I was right" argument. This is your idea of trying to have "a dialogue"?
You needn't decline it. I can see it would be a waste of time.
Yes, my response to you was a complete waste of time. You neither care that you misread what was said nor that you were being much more invasive in your questioning than any DMV photo would be, and yet I should object to one and freely participate in the other. The fact that you asked is the problem, my having a choice or not.
...does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures.
You think that keeping the DMV photo online so the actual identity of someone can be verified is invasive, I do not. I think the ability of law enforcement to double check an identity using information that is relatively hard to forge is well worth the non-invasive nature of the process.
I find your attempted interrogation as to political/etc affiliations to be much more invasive than simply having my driver's license photo in the DMV database. I'm supposed to object to the latter but go along happily with the former?
It's still only got the one radio, using just the one radio channel you were already using.
That's the problem. It very well may be using the channel I'm already using. (Actually, two that I'm already using when I turn on my second AP.) Since I can't control which one it uses, it may very well bounce around as Comcast sees fit to bounce their digital channels around. What's to stop it from landing smack on top of the wireless channel(s) I'm already using?
I'm not sure I would want any enticement for people to stand around outside my house browsing the web. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.
You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group.
No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?
If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison?
Because even with the manipulation, the top 1% of the people pay significantly more in taxes than they have in income. If they were able to game the system so well, they'd be paying much less in income taxes than they are. In case you missed it, Schedule A (deductions) comes after the calculation of AGI, so a skillful manipulator of itemized deductions would have a high AGI and a low tax. That doesn't happen.
In reality, real pre-tax income vs. taxes paid would show you how fair the system is.
In your opinion. Since the money that is deducted is no longer income, I'd say it would be unfair to use that as a comparison. If you made $20,000 in total income and donated $10,000 to charity, would it be fair to tax you on the entire $20,000? Of course not. But you say it would be. Now add in that you paid $2000 in mortgage interest, and had unreimbursed business expenses of another $1000. The amount you'd be taxed on is now just $7000. You want it to be the full $20,000 to be fair, right? You want to be fair, right?
Flat tax, the real solution to the problem
Flat tax as proposed is not a solution to anything but the whining of the class haters. I've calculated what I would owe under current laws and the "fair" flat tax and I'd owe double. Now, you may think I'm one of the 1%, but I'm far from it. Your "fair" flat tax would kill the middle class. Is that your target? You hate them, too?
You continue to show that one tax chart because it's the only way you can claim to be correct
Yes, showing the facts is a good way of showing oneself to be correct in stating the facts. Where are your numbers? Where is YOUR source? You have nothing to back you up but bluster and insult. And, by the way, I've shown two sources of different information, with multiple charts per source. You haven't bothered to look, have you? You don't know what they show.
If it was a fair system, don't you think we would be staying steady on the wealth disparity area?
Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.
And no, I'm not talking about the 300K/yr money, but multiples of millions per year.
And the only numbers that have been presented here show that those people pay far more in percentage of tax than they make in income and you have nothing to show otherwise. You have nothing to show your 8-10% claim, and you have nothing to show your 30-40% claim for the rest of us. You've got some alleged failure to claim income on the part of the awful rich people, but nothing to prove it.
And here, I'll point this out to you -- poor people have just as much to gain from underreporting their income as rich people do. In fact, more. If they can get below certain AGI levels, they can get tax credits. Free money. The rich just pay a bit less in tax. But I'm not trying to claim how many people do this because I have no numbers to back this up. You, OTOH, keep spouting unsupported claims without any source at all.
I guess you'll just have to remain unhappy that other people make more money than you do.
I say the pictures were ment to provide easy verification that the driver's licence you're holding is in fact yours. Matching against databases was not in the original charter, so to speak, and in fact storing the pictures at all beyond display on the licence itself isn't either.
How else can you verify that the license was issued to the person holding it without keeping the picture of that person on file? It is relatively easy to forge a license with any picture you want, it is relatively hard to get your forged picture into the database.
You say it is ok to have the picture to verify that the license "is yours", but that involves more than just matching the picture on the license to the person holding it. Having a picture on the license match doesn't mean the name and address and driving qualifications listed on that license are yours.
It's part of the socialist system. You're describing how that system should deal with the difference in desirability of housing. Behind that all is the issue of being paid to work.
You do no work, you get no share in products of society produced by those working in "balanced job complexes".
Sorry, that's not the concept behind the system. "To those according to their need" is the second part of the equity equation.
Bully for you. But the rest of society has decided they aren't going to work their asses off in miserable jobs so you can collect all the fruits of their labor and live high on the hog off their work.
That's right, and that's the failure of the system. They aren't going to work their asses off when they don't have to.
I hope being homeless and starving is your second choice preference after that private island.
We all own everything together. That includes your house and your food. Guess who's coming to dinner?
If it is illegal to remove income as taxable income, it is not a crime.
You have no idea what you are saying, you are just ranting about rich people you don't think are paying enough in taxes. Of course if it is illegal to remove income as taxable income it is a crime. That's BY DEFINITION. Do you have any evidence that those awful rich people are doing this, or is it just conjecture on your part? If you have evidence, report it to the IRS. I think they have a bounty for such things, but even if they don't, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report it. Don't just whine about it.
If you have no intention of acknowledging facts, don't try to debate.
I showed you the facts. The link I provided showed you were wrong. Where's your data?
It is potentially taxed income
You have a problem sticking with the terms you use. You said it was "potential income", not "potentially taxed income." Which is it?
This is why the tax code assumes "potential" while determining what your tax rate is.
That is complete and utter nonsense. There is no "potential income" line on the tax form. There is "total income", "adjusted gross income", and "income subject to tax". The tax rates are based on "income subject to tax". That's not a "potential income", it's based on actual income. The total income has nothing to do with your tax rates, which is what I think you are trying to refer to as "potential income", but there is no "potential" about it. Either it is or it isn't. If a rich person, no, if ANY person isn't writing down all the income on his tax form, it is a crime. If you have proof someone is doing that, report it. Just assuming it happens is a waste of everyone's time.
Guessing? How about basic common sense.
You're guessing at how much a rich person puts in this "tax account". There is no "common sense" to tell you that, you'd have to ask the rich people.
If you spend $2.00 purchasing a $1.50 coupon,
I'm not spending anything when I put money in an account. I still have it, it's there for me to withdraw when I want to. If I'm putting it into a "tax account" as an escrow for future taxes, well, that doesn't change how much tax I'll owe, only that I'll be sure to make some interest on it while I'm holding it.
If, by some odd chance, you are referring to an IRA of some kind by "tax account", then you're still wrong. Then the rich person truly is using $100,000 to get no benefit. His deductions for this money go away as his income goes up and if he has a qualified retirement plan. I am hardly in the top 5% even, but I am high enough up the scale that my allowed contribution is exactly $0. An IRA truly is a poor-person's benefit -- another example of you complaining about a deduction that the rich can't take but the poor can, just like the "per person" dependent deduction and child tax credit.
You never showed my numbers were upside down,
I pointed you to the link that showed you they were. Since you didn't bother to look, let's review, shall we? You said, and I quoted this in my response: "Wealthy people pay 8-10% tax on average while you and I pay 35-40%." I provided a link to here, which you apparently did not bother to look at. In that data for 2009, it shows the following facts:
The average tax rate for the top 1% was 24.01%
The average tax rate for the 25% to 50% level was 5.58%
The average tax rate for 10% to 25% was 8.23%
The average rates for lower income brackets were smaller.
Now, I don't know what tax rate you fall into, but the data clearly shows that while you claim that "wealthy" pay only 8-10%, they really pay 24.01%. And the "you and I" pay anywhere from 6-11% (and that covers from $32k thro
You are forgetting that in a society where everything is communally owned, there is no need for organised violence to deal with uncooperative people. All they need to do is withdraw your right to access to the community's property (i.e. everything),
If I am an owner, how can anyone withdraw my right to access something? And who enforces this withdrawal? Do you imagine that I'll simply leave the house I'm staying in if you come around and say "please leave, you've not cleaned your share of toilets today"? You'll make me leave? You and whose army? Oh, there's the organized violence.
after you've spent acouple of months living under a bridge and eating rotting food out of trash cans.
How about a couple of months eating out of your refrigerator and sleeping in your bed? I'm not going to live under a bridge just because you ask me to. You think I should sleep in the cold? Nice try. Ain't gonna happen. The stuff in your house is just as much mine as it is yours. That's what your socialism rules tell me. You made the rules, now live with them.
And that, Weedlekin, is the reason pure socialism can never work -- it is being run by and applied to human beings.
No, it wouldn't. It would result in the same kind of power struggles and partisanship that occurs today, only worse because scientists aren't elected.
Anyone who has been alive for more than a decade has already seen the back-and-forth that science brings us regarding simple things. Red wine is good for you. Let's pass laws making it legal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is bad for you, let's make it illegal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is good for you in small amounts, let's make it legal to buy a glass at a time.... This study shows... that study shows... the other study shows something else. Which do we follow? What law do we enact? That's just one example.
Then you need to reconcile the concept of human rights and freedom against stark realities of physical law. It's dangerous to skydive. We're banning skydiving. It's dangerous to fly small airplanes. Let's ban small airplanes. It's dangerous to be distracted while driving. Let's ban all distractions. I mean ALL distractions. It's dangerous to drive anywhere, let's ban cars.
with the amount of data technocrats would have
Who elects the technocrats? Does anyone with a scientific degree get to create new laws, or only some of them?
The main problem is that science deals with one part of reality and society deals with a different thing. Science doesn't consider the human side of things (no, I don't mean physiology, I mean social and emotional things), but the law has to. Science doesn't care if I like the taste of red wine, it deals with how it hurts or helps my health. "You must drink red wine because it is good for you" is a bad law from so many standpoints, but it would be "science" in a technocrat society.
Let's end it with this: if I do a cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty issue, I would probably wind up with the answer that it costs society much less to execute a convicted murderer than it does to keep him in prison for any significant amount of time. (That applies to pretty much any convicted criminal sent to prison. A dollar or two of drugs vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in incarceration costs. Benefits to society: lower population, lower costs for supporting that population, less carbon footprint as relatives and friend don't have to drive to the jail to visit. Wow, a win for the planet!) I would also probably come up with the science to support that once a person has committed a murder he's more likely to murder again. (Yes, the "one off" crimes of passion exist, but there are a lot of people who are complete psycho and sociopaths who will murder more than once, and they bring up the odds.) I could probably manage a scientific study that shows the costs of multiple, unending appeals are the main reason that the death penalty has any added expense, and that the majority of those fail.
Ergo, science tells us that someone who is convicted of murder no longer gets appeals and is executed at the earliest opportunity. It's a simple cost/benefit study. Science has ruled. But wait, people make mistakes. There are incalculable and often unrepeatable social costs (and thus outside any scientific realm) to the death penalty and we shouldn't do it. Sorry. Science rules.
And as a final nail in this coffin: the science of eugenics. Technocratic government is nice?
Fear of exactly what I said. They agreed not to talk about certain things as a condition of getting paid to do what they do and getting access to the information they got access to. They were afraid that while talking about unclassified things they would let classified information that they agreed not to talk about slip out.
This "government knocking" isn't because they talked to the press, it would be because they talked about things they voluntarily agreed not to talk about.
As for the second point, you cant really wave your right to the 1st amendment here,
Yes, you can. It's easy. Go to work for a government contractor that deals with classified information and see if you aren't expected to waive your first amendment rights, at least with respect to the classified information you have access to. Or, join the military. There's lots of things you can't say under the UCMJ that someone not subject to those regulations can say freely.
Being able to do so would render it more or less useless.
Nonsense. If you want to keep your first amendment rights, don't waive them. Very simple.
"you wave your right to your 1st amendment rights by utilizing the given "FREE SPEECH ZONE" of your choice."
If you sign such a contract, then you have, indeed, waived your rights. Since such contracts are figments of the imagination, then your argument is similarly a figment. The problem with your figment is that it involves information solely created by the speaker, which has not been subject to NDA or other agreements. Should someone go to a free speech zone (whatever that is) and start spouting nuclear secrets, he would not be prosecuted for doing so in a free speech zone against some fictional appropriate usage agreement, he's be prosecuted for breaking the agreement that got him access to those secrets in the first place. If an active-duty military person used a "free speech zone" to make statements that violate the UCMJ, he'd be prosecuted under the UCMJ -- which contains no mention of "free speech zones." The "free speech zone" is irrelevant.
But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source.
I'm sorry, but when I saw this in meta-moderation I had to come comment. Open Source is one of the least equal environments I have ever seen. Linus, the perl pumpkin, etc, are not equals.
In an open source project, if a majority of people want something, one of three things happens.
The open source project leader agrees and it happens.
The open source leader disagrees, but enough people who know how to program and are familiar with the project create a fork and the user community splits into fragments that may or may not be sufficient to support the long term existence of either or both versions.
The group who wants the thing don't know how to program and it just doesn't happen.
In a true world of equals, the first action would always happen.
That's the point. Who is going to work when they get paid the same no matter what? Who is going to maintain the nice houses so that the string of visitors can use them when they show up? Who is going to fly the planes to take people there? Who is going to drive the cabs? Who is going to fix the toilets when they break? Who fixes the broken water pipes? I won't -- I'm not living in that house and you're paying me whether I work or not. Tough to be you.
you might not get a private island rainforest, but you'll always be an easy stroll away from some beautiful parks and garden groves,
I want a private island. I don't want to be "an easy stroll away" from what I want. I'm sorry, I'm working on what?
With a little earthmoving machinery,
Built and maintained and run by who? Interesting topography to who? Designed by who? You think a pile of dirt heaped up by a grader can equal a mountain vista or oceanside view? You haven't seen a mountain vista or been to the ocean, have you?
Are you willfully blind or just ignorant? The top 1% don't claim income on a large portion of their income.
I know I can have a discussion without automatically resorting to name calling.
If you have evidence that someone isn't reporting all their income, report them to the IRS. That's a crime.
They define what "is" income for those with large amounts of income.
The tax codes define what is income for those with any amount of income, even none at all. They define what is income for me, for you, and for the person next door.
For example, investing private funds in a Government approved business alleviates that sum of money from their potential income.
Now you're using the term "potential income". I don't know what that is, or why someone should be taxed on income that is only potentially theirs.
Now, if you mean that there are deductions from income granted for certain things, well, yes, of course there are. But first you have to report the income to deduct it legally. I can't just change the amounts on my W2s when I want to deduct mortgage interest or charities. Neither can those awful rich people.
Certain tax investments available to those that can afford them also remove that income from taxes.
Of course. But that's different than not claiming the income in the first place, and deductions aren't limited to certain people. Of course if you can't afford to give $10,000 to charity you can't claim a $10,000 deduction on your tax form. You didn't give $10,000 to charity, the charity didn't get the benefit of $10,000, so why would you expect to be able to deduct a charitable contribution of that size that you didn't make? You also still have whatever money you didn't donate, and the rich person does not. He can't spend the $10,000 he gave to charity, the charity did get the benefit of $10,000, and so he should get the benefit of the deduction.
Those deductions are in addition to, and exactly like, what you and I see for on our tax forms.
Yes. They are on our tax forms, too. If we could qualify, we could take those deductions. But that's STILL different than not claiming the income.
Notice that if you make X dollars and can take 9,600.00 per person from your income, that income is removed and your taxable income is lower than you started with.
The personal exemption was $3900 for someone who made less than $250,000 AGI, but was zero for anyone over $397,500. (Source: here..) This same amount applies to dependents. That's the only "per person" number I know.
So, you should note that the awful rich people you hate so much don't get that deduction, at least not most of it. The latest number I have is for 2009 and the bottom end of the 1% was $343,927. I suspect that 2013 was higher, and it wouldn't take but $50k added to the bottom of that bracket to put that deduction out of reach entirely. And they don't get the child tax credit of $1000, which does nothing to reduce AGI but is a straight subtraction from the tax you owe. If you owed $1000 in taxes and had a child, and made less than $75,000 AGI, you would owe ZERO in taxes. If you managed to get your tax bill down to zero for the year and had an AGI of less than the stated amount, you'd get a check for $1000 from the other taxpayers.
It seems rather silly to complain about a deduction that rich people can't use when you're complaining about all the deductions the rich people have that you don't. Given that the latter is "none", it seems even sillier.
If a person pays a hundred thousand dollars to a tax account a year, are you foolish enough to believe t
In the case of James Clapper, the senator questioning him was Ron Wyden (D - Oregon) who is currently on the Select Committee on Intelligence and (I imagine) already very well knows all about PRISM and such.
As a constituent of Senator Wyden who has heard for years only glowing reviews of his personality and character, I'd like to point out one fact that everyone seems to be overlooking.
As you say, he already knew about PRISM, and was, in fact, making broad hints about the program for months. He knew about the program AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT. He has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and did nothing to stop PRISM from taking place. This leaves one of two situations, and I'll let you pick which you believe. Either the PRISM program is Constitutional, or Ron Wyden has broken his oath to us and abdicated his responsibility as the Senator he was elected to be and should therefore be recalled. (One of the clear duties of the Senate and House are as a check and balance upon the Executive branch. Civics 101.)
If you complain about the PRISM program trodding upon your Constitutional rights, you have Mr. Wyden to thank for not acting to stop it, and have chosen the latter position.
As an aside, Mr. Wyden is the politician who, while running for Senate the first time, promised to run a clean, honest, upfront campaign with no negative campaigning. Immediately following this pledge, advertisements began appearing against his opponent, Gordon Smith, claiming Smith "killed a kid" in the name of corporate profits. The truth was, a teenaged employee (legally employed) at Smith's farm died in an accident, and the parents of the teen appeared soon after the negative ads in ads for Smith absolving him of responsibility and blame.
The article I saw yesterday on this pointed out that the demand was for smartphones AND tablets to have this kill feature, and that it must kill the device even if it is not online.
Now, I don't know how that's going to work, but I can easily forsee a case of Google (for example) seeing a non-Google-approved android device showing up at the Play Store and the kill code being sent out... not saying Google would do that, but can you imagine the fun of a malicious app that lets you do something wonderful, for a week and then it shuts your device off permanently? No factory reset, no recovery. Dead.
I can actually believe that some large unnamed software company would include this code in their phones/tablets to prevent piracy of their software. Keep in mind the difficulty of upgrading the computer hardware using some unmentioned OSs because they base their license on things like the serial number of the hard drive. New hard drive, different system, no license. Brick. Buy smartphone with certain OS, buy software for it, screw up in license server. Brick.
Imagine the phun when someone discovers how to send this code to a phone via SMS? Hilarity ensues...
Based on their findings, Nutt pushed for the classification of illegal drugs based on actual harm, rather than arbitrarily as it still is now.
This is not a scientific issue, it is a legal and ethical issue. He was thus no longer speaking as a scientific advisor, he was taking a legal/political stance.
For this heinous crime he was sacked by the then Home Secretary,
OMG. He became an outspoken advocate against current government policy while being paid by the government to provide scientific input, and he got fired. How awful.
It seems that all governments are anti-scientific when the science contradicts their ridiculous ideologies, especially when it comes to drug policy.
Laws should and must include social considerations and not just be a reflection of scientific physical laws. While you may call that "anti-scientific", it really isn't. You may also call firing a scientist who has wandered into public policy "anti-scientific", but really, again, it isn't. "Use of drug X causes Y dollars in damage to society, using the following assumptions and cost analysis basis..." is science. "We should set the criminal level of use of drug X based on cost..." is a statement of a personal opinion.
"Yes, thank you, agrarian scientist, for the information that one person walking on a field of grass doesn't hurt the grass but may in fact help it. We're still going to make 'Do Not Walk On The Grass' signs legal and enforce them with trespass violations because the owner of the grass has property rights that your science doesn't consider."
Oooh, oooh, a car analogy just came to mind. "Thank you Dr. Traffic Safety Investigator, we understand that any distraction at all while driving can increase the chances of an accident. Unfortunately, it is politically and socially unacceptable to outlaw the use of the car radio or windshield wipers while the car is in motion, nor will we create a law limiting the driver's and passenger's freedom of speech by prohibiting all discussions during a drive. We may consider a law allowing the use of duct tape on small children in the back seat, however."
and preventively has forbidden the scientists to talk about it for good measure.
The article says nothing about prevention. It mentions one time when a scientist was asked not to speak to the press again. Ask. The rest of the complaint is that scientists who have signed the Official Secrets Act are hesitant to talk because THEY are afraid they might let something confidential slip out. Their fear, not a prohibition from the government, stops them from talking.
Two points. Great Britain does not have a 1st Amendment, and even if it did (or has something equivalent) these scientists have waived the rights it would grant by signing an agreement not to talk about certain things.
As for badgers, everyone knows that British badgers are a source of tuberculosis that is hurting the cows and beef/dairy production of small family farms, and that only addle-brained old women want to put up "badger crossing" signs. Doesn't anyone in England listen to The Archers anymore?
Don't the top 5% make far more than 58% of all the income?
No. From here, the top 5% made 32% of the total AGI. That's far less than 58%.
The same link shows some amazing other numbers, like the average tax rate for the top 5% is more than 20%, while the average for all is only 11%, and the bottom 50% rate is less than 2%.
Warren Buffet was complaining that his secretary paid more in taxes than he did. That may be true, if Warren Buffet is a tax cheat. The average tax rate for the top 1% was 24%, while the average tax rate for the 25-50% group (AGI between $32k and $66k) was just 5.58%. I expect Buffet's AGI to be in the top 1%, so that 24% of his much larger income (>$343k) should be considerably larger than his secretary's 5.5% of $66k. Calculation: 24% of 343k is $82k. 5.5% of $66k is $3630. That's 22 times as much. Unless he's a cheat, or she's borrowing money to give the feds her entire salary plus extra money. I'd believe the former much sooner than I'd believe the latter.
Holy shit, I QUOTED that sentence. Did you miss the word "EMPLOYEES"? I guess so.
Now read this sentence:
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines employment very broadly, i.e., "to suffer or permit to work."
Now read THIS sentence, which is in the same link:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
I'm sure you didn't miss it, it's the very next sentence, clarifying the actual intent of FLSA and giving the sentiment of the court on the matter. It is a rather clear statement that the FLSA does NOT make all persons who "work upon the premises of another" an employee. No, they weren't talking about people who sneak in after hours to do things, they're talking about people who are doing things they are permitted to do.
Suppose you see a pile of scrap in my shop yard. You come to me and say "I'll cart that away for you for free." Fine with me, it saves me money paying someone to do it (a direct benefit to me and replacing work that I would have to assign to someone else), but I'm not paying you (you're not my employee). You say "that was fun, can I do it every week?" I say "sure". No laws are broken. You are permitted to work on my premises without me paying you and you are not my employee.
So, week five into this deal, I've not created much scrap, so you don't make more in selling it to someone else than it cost you to pick it up. Can you sue me for not "compensating" you sufficiently for your services as an employee? Nonsense. You're not my employee, and a lack of scrap doesn't turn you into one.
So, since (1) all "employees" of for-profit private-sector employers must be paid,
Not an issue.
and (2) all persons who the employer "suffer[s] or permit[s] to work" are "employees,"
No. SCOTUS has said that FLSA does not say that. You need to read the second sentence in the paragraph you quoted from.
I have no problems with the concept of laws protecting interns from bait-and-switch like you describe.
Why? You agreed to work for free, it's not like they've broken their agreement to pay you. You're not bound by any money, they aren't paying the bills so there's no hint of you being forced to stay there so you can feed the children or pay the rent.
You can walk away any time. The end result is no different than if you had asked to be a production person for free and they said no. They said yes, they said "do this other thing", you say no and walk away. Why do you need a law to cover this?
Slashdot Mirror
Digital sensors in cameras essentially always have a UV/IR filter built in (UV/IR filters for DSLRs are really just lens protectors).
No, they don't. That's why there is an IR filter you can remove in front of them. It's buried in the camera itself in most cases, but many of the cameras I've used (machine vision/scientific, in particular) have the IR filter easily accessible and removable. And many of the color cameras I've used outdoors now have very odd colors because the UV has deteriorated the sensor's color filters for the R, G, and B.
Why make two kinds of sensors when you can make one and then put a $0.50 filter in front depending on the use?
Its easy to remove the IR/UV filters in a camera...
Not if the filter is built into the sensor, it isn't. That's why they don't build them into the sensor. If it's easy to remove the filters in the sensor, I challenge you to remove the Bayer filters from a color sensor and turn the camera into true monochrome.
But you're right, this stuff isn't new simply because it is so easy to take the filters out of the camera. I've had mono cameras I've had to put IR filters in because the vendor didn't (but does for the same model in color because without it the colors are off.) I've got one on my desk now that has no IR filters but does have an IR pass, and the images are very, well, they look funny if you don't know what is happening.
Sounds like you didn't comprehend a word of my previous post...
Looks like someone didn't understand something...
Most people use the wireless AP their ISP gives them.
I don't care what most people do. I was explicit in talking about how this "service" would interact with what I do.
No extra channels needed. No possibility of conflicts.
Until it lands on top of one of the two channels I'm using and then there will be a conflict. A conflict I won't be able to prevent them from creating and will have to spend my time solving. And then solve again the next time it happens. And then when my neighbor gets his Comcast "free" wifi box and either one of his lands on top of mine.
At that point I go to HSMM and don't care about the low power interference.
I think that it is invasive in that they can (and will) use it for identification beyond the scope of what the photo was originally taken for.
I understand that it is fun and convenient to ignore some of the words when you want to make a good rant, but you should please note that I was explicit in saying what the purpose of the photos I did not find invasive was. You might as well come up with some fanciful use like editing random people's heads onto other people's bodies in sex tapes as another use for DMV photos and then rant at me about how I said that such a use wouldn't be invasive or unacceptable. You'd be just as accurate and just as honest.
I was pretty explicit in saying that I did not find invasive the ability of police to verify an identity using stored DMV photos. The person to whom I replied, which wasn't you, claimed that such use was outside the scope of the original photo, and I responded to that specific claim.
Maybe you just don't know what is and isn't invasive or private?
Right. Now you're trying the decrepit "if only you was as smart as me you'd know I was right" argument. This is your idea of trying to have "a dialogue"?
You needn't decline it. I can see it would be a waste of time.
Yes, my response to you was a complete waste of time. You neither care that you misread what was said nor that you were being much more invasive in your questioning than any DMV photo would be, and yet I should object to one and freely participate in the other. The fact that you asked is the problem, my having a choice or not.
...does not mean that the remainder of law abiding citizens should be subject to invasive measures.
You think that keeping the DMV photo online so the actual identity of someone can be verified is invasive, I do not. I think the ability of law enforcement to double check an identity using information that is relatively hard to forge is well worth the non-invasive nature of the process.
I find your attempted interrogation as to political/etc affiliations to be much more invasive than simply having my driver's license photo in the DMV database. I'm supposed to object to the latter but go along happily with the former?
It's still only got the one radio, using just the one radio channel you were already using.
That's the problem. It very well may be using the channel I'm already using. (Actually, two that I'm already using when I turn on my second AP.) Since I can't control which one it uses, it may very well bounce around as Comcast sees fit to bounce their digital channels around. What's to stop it from landing smack on top of the wireless channel(s) I'm already using?
I'm not sure I would want any enticement for people to stand around outside my house browsing the web. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.
You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group.
No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?
If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison?
Because even with the manipulation, the top 1% of the people pay significantly more in taxes than they have in income. If they were able to game the system so well, they'd be paying much less in income taxes than they are. In case you missed it, Schedule A (deductions) comes after the calculation of AGI, so a skillful manipulator of itemized deductions would have a high AGI and a low tax. That doesn't happen.
In reality, real pre-tax income vs. taxes paid would show you how fair the system is.
In your opinion. Since the money that is deducted is no longer income, I'd say it would be unfair to use that as a comparison. If you made $20,000 in total income and donated $10,000 to charity, would it be fair to tax you on the entire $20,000? Of course not. But you say it would be. Now add in that you paid $2000 in mortgage interest, and had unreimbursed business expenses of another $1000. The amount you'd be taxed on is now just $7000. You want it to be the full $20,000 to be fair, right? You want to be fair, right?
Flat tax, the real solution to the problem
Flat tax as proposed is not a solution to anything but the whining of the class haters. I've calculated what I would owe under current laws and the "fair" flat tax and I'd owe double. Now, you may think I'm one of the 1%, but I'm far from it. Your "fair" flat tax would kill the middle class. Is that your target? You hate them, too?
You continue to show that one tax chart because it's the only way you can claim to be correct
Yes, showing the facts is a good way of showing oneself to be correct in stating the facts. Where are your numbers? Where is YOUR source? You have nothing to back you up but bluster and insult. And, by the way, I've shown two sources of different information, with multiple charts per source. You haven't bothered to look, have you? You don't know what they show.
If it was a fair system, don't you think we would be staying steady on the wealth disparity area?
Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.
And no, I'm not talking about the 300K/yr money, but multiples of millions per year.
And the only numbers that have been presented here show that those people pay far more in percentage of tax than they make in income and you have nothing to show otherwise. You have nothing to show your 8-10% claim, and you have nothing to show your 30-40% claim for the rest of us. You've got some alleged failure to claim income on the part of the awful rich people, but nothing to prove it.
And here, I'll point this out to you -- poor people have just as much to gain from underreporting their income as rich people do. In fact, more. If they can get below certain AGI levels, they can get tax credits. Free money. The rich just pay a bit less in tax. But I'm not trying to claim how many people do this because I have no numbers to back this up. You, OTOH, keep spouting unsupported claims without any source at all.
I guess you'll just have to remain unhappy that other people make more money than you do.
I say the pictures were ment to provide easy verification that the driver's licence you're holding is in fact yours. Matching against databases was not in the original charter, so to speak, and in fact storing the pictures at all beyond display on the licence itself isn't either.
How else can you verify that the license was issued to the person holding it without keeping the picture of that person on file? It is relatively easy to forge a license with any picture you want, it is relatively hard to get your forged picture into the database.
You say it is ok to have the picture to verify that the license "is yours", but that involves more than just matching the picture on the license to the person holding it. Having a picture on the license match doesn't mean the name and address and driving qualifications listed on that license are yours.
Where was that in my description above?
It's part of the socialist system. You're describing how that system should deal with the difference in desirability of housing. Behind that all is the issue of being paid to work.
You do no work, you get no share in products of society produced by those working in "balanced job complexes".
Sorry, that's not the concept behind the system. "To those according to their need" is the second part of the equity equation.
Bully for you. But the rest of society has decided they aren't going to work their asses off in miserable jobs so you can collect all the fruits of their labor and live high on the hog off their work.
That's right, and that's the failure of the system. They aren't going to work their asses off when they don't have to.
I hope being homeless and starving is your second choice preference after that private island.
We all own everything together. That includes your house and your food. Guess who's coming to dinner?
If it is illegal to remove income as taxable income, it is not a crime.
You have no idea what you are saying, you are just ranting about rich people you don't think are paying enough in taxes. Of course if it is illegal to remove income as taxable income it is a crime. That's BY DEFINITION. Do you have any evidence that those awful rich people are doing this, or is it just conjecture on your part? If you have evidence, report it to the IRS. I think they have a bounty for such things, but even if they don't, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report it. Don't just whine about it.
If you have no intention of acknowledging facts, don't try to debate.
I showed you the facts. The link I provided showed you were wrong. Where's your data?
It is potentially taxed income
You have a problem sticking with the terms you use. You said it was "potential income", not "potentially taxed income." Which is it?
This is why the tax code assumes "potential" while determining what your tax rate is.
That is complete and utter nonsense. There is no "potential income" line on the tax form. There is "total income", "adjusted gross income", and "income subject to tax". The tax rates are based on "income subject to tax". That's not a "potential income", it's based on actual income. The total income has nothing to do with your tax rates, which is what I think you are trying to refer to as "potential income", but there is no "potential" about it. Either it is or it isn't. If a rich person, no, if ANY person isn't writing down all the income on his tax form, it is a crime. If you have proof someone is doing that, report it. Just assuming it happens is a waste of everyone's time.
Guessing? How about basic common sense.
You're guessing at how much a rich person puts in this "tax account". There is no "common sense" to tell you that, you'd have to ask the rich people.
If you spend $2.00 purchasing a $1.50 coupon,
I'm not spending anything when I put money in an account. I still have it, it's there for me to withdraw when I want to. If I'm putting it into a "tax account" as an escrow for future taxes, well, that doesn't change how much tax I'll owe, only that I'll be sure to make some interest on it while I'm holding it.
If, by some odd chance, you are referring to an IRA of some kind by "tax account", then you're still wrong. Then the rich person truly is using $100,000 to get no benefit. His deductions for this money go away as his income goes up and if he has a qualified retirement plan. I am hardly in the top 5% even, but I am high enough up the scale that my allowed contribution is exactly $0. An IRA truly is a poor-person's benefit -- another example of you complaining about a deduction that the rich can't take but the poor can, just like the "per person" dependent deduction and child tax credit.
You never showed my numbers were upside down,
I pointed you to the link that showed you they were. Since you didn't bother to look, let's review, shall we? You said, and I quoted this in my response: "Wealthy people pay 8-10% tax on average while you and I pay 35-40%." I provided a link to here, which you apparently did not bother to look at. In that data for 2009, it shows the following facts:
Now, I don't know what tax rate you fall into, but the data clearly shows that while you claim that "wealthy" pay only 8-10%, they really pay 24.01%. And the "you and I" pay anywhere from 6-11% (and that covers from $32k thro
You are forgetting that in a society where everything is communally owned, there is no need for organised violence to deal with uncooperative people. All they need to do is withdraw your right to access to the community's property (i.e. everything),
If I am an owner, how can anyone withdraw my right to access something? And who enforces this withdrawal? Do you imagine that I'll simply leave the house I'm staying in if you come around and say "please leave, you've not cleaned your share of toilets today"? You'll make me leave? You and whose army? Oh, there's the organized violence.
after you've spent acouple of months living under a bridge and eating rotting food out of trash cans.
How about a couple of months eating out of your refrigerator and sleeping in your bed? I'm not going to live under a bridge just because you ask me to. You think I should sleep in the cold? Nice try. Ain't gonna happen. The stuff in your house is just as much mine as it is yours. That's what your socialism rules tell me. You made the rules, now live with them.
And that, Weedlekin, is the reason pure socialism can never work -- it is being run by and applied to human beings.
A technocratic government. That'd be nice.
No, it wouldn't. It would result in the same kind of power struggles and partisanship that occurs today, only worse because scientists aren't elected.
Anyone who has been alive for more than a decade has already seen the back-and-forth that science brings us regarding simple things. Red wine is good for you. Let's pass laws making it legal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is bad for you, let's make it illegal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is good for you in small amounts, let's make it legal to buy a glass at a time.... This study shows ... that study shows ... the other study shows something else. Which do we follow? What law do we enact? That's just one example.
Then you need to reconcile the concept of human rights and freedom against stark realities of physical law. It's dangerous to skydive. We're banning skydiving. It's dangerous to fly small airplanes. Let's ban small airplanes. It's dangerous to be distracted while driving. Let's ban all distractions. I mean ALL distractions. It's dangerous to drive anywhere, let's ban cars.
with the amount of data technocrats would have
Who elects the technocrats? Does anyone with a scientific degree get to create new laws, or only some of them?
The main problem is that science deals with one part of reality and society deals with a different thing. Science doesn't consider the human side of things (no, I don't mean physiology, I mean social and emotional things), but the law has to. Science doesn't care if I like the taste of red wine, it deals with how it hurts or helps my health. "You must drink red wine because it is good for you" is a bad law from so many standpoints, but it would be "science" in a technocrat society.
Let's end it with this: if I do a cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty issue, I would probably wind up with the answer that it costs society much less to execute a convicted murderer than it does to keep him in prison for any significant amount of time. (That applies to pretty much any convicted criminal sent to prison. A dollar or two of drugs vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in incarceration costs. Benefits to society: lower population, lower costs for supporting that population, less carbon footprint as relatives and friend don't have to drive to the jail to visit. Wow, a win for the planet!) I would also probably come up with the science to support that once a person has committed a murder he's more likely to murder again. (Yes, the "one off" crimes of passion exist, but there are a lot of people who are complete psycho and sociopaths who will murder more than once, and they bring up the odds.) I could probably manage a scientific study that shows the costs of multiple, unending appeals are the main reason that the death penalty has any added expense, and that the majority of those fail.
Ergo, science tells us that someone who is convicted of murder no longer gets appeals and is executed at the earliest opportunity. It's a simple cost/benefit study. Science has ruled. But wait, people make mistakes. There are incalculable and often unrepeatable social costs (and thus outside any scientific realm) to the death penalty and we shouldn't do it. Sorry. Science rules.
And as a final nail in this coffin: the science of eugenics. Technocratic government is nice?
Fear of what?
Fear of exactly what I said. They agreed not to talk about certain things as a condition of getting paid to do what they do and getting access to the information they got access to. They were afraid that while talking about unclassified things they would let classified information that they agreed not to talk about slip out.
This "government knocking" isn't because they talked to the press, it would be because they talked about things they voluntarily agreed not to talk about.
As for the second point, you cant really wave your right to the 1st amendment here,
Yes, you can. It's easy. Go to work for a government contractor that deals with classified information and see if you aren't expected to waive your first amendment rights, at least with respect to the classified information you have access to. Or, join the military. There's lots of things you can't say under the UCMJ that someone not subject to those regulations can say freely.
Being able to do so would render it more or less useless.
Nonsense. If you want to keep your first amendment rights, don't waive them. Very simple.
"you wave your right to your 1st amendment rights by utilizing the given "FREE SPEECH ZONE" of your choice."
If you sign such a contract, then you have, indeed, waived your rights. Since such contracts are figments of the imagination, then your argument is similarly a figment. The problem with your figment is that it involves information solely created by the speaker, which has not been subject to NDA or other agreements. Should someone go to a free speech zone (whatever that is) and start spouting nuclear secrets, he would not be prosecuted for doing so in a free speech zone against some fictional appropriate usage agreement, he's be prosecuted for breaking the agreement that got him access to those secrets in the first place. If an active-duty military person used a "free speech zone" to make statements that violate the UCMJ, he'd be prosecuted under the UCMJ -- which contains no mention of "free speech zones." The "free speech zone" is irrelevant.
But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source.
I'm sorry, but when I saw this in meta-moderation I had to come comment. Open Source is one of the least equal environments I have ever seen. Linus, the perl pumpkin, etc, are not equals.
In an open source project, if a majority of people want something, one of three things happens.
In a true world of equals, the first action would always happen.
In the process, people work
That's the point. Who is going to work when they get paid the same no matter what? Who is going to maintain the nice houses so that the string of visitors can use them when they show up? Who is going to fly the planes to take people there? Who is going to drive the cabs? Who is going to fix the toilets when they break? Who fixes the broken water pipes? I won't -- I'm not living in that house and you're paying me whether I work or not. Tough to be you.
you might not get a private island rainforest, but you'll always be an easy stroll away from some beautiful parks and garden groves,
I want a private island. I don't want to be "an easy stroll away" from what I want. I'm sorry, I'm working on what?
With a little earthmoving machinery,
Built and maintained and run by who? Interesting topography to who? Designed by who? You think a pile of dirt heaped up by a grader can equal a mountain vista or oceanside view? You haven't seen a mountain vista or been to the ocean, have you?
Are you willfully blind or just ignorant? The top 1% don't claim income on a large portion of their income.
I know I can have a discussion without automatically resorting to name calling.
If you have evidence that someone isn't reporting all their income, report them to the IRS. That's a crime.
They define what "is" income for those with large amounts of income.
The tax codes define what is income for those with any amount of income, even none at all. They define what is income for me, for you, and for the person next door.
For example, investing private funds in a Government approved business alleviates that sum of money from their potential income.
Now you're using the term "potential income". I don't know what that is, or why someone should be taxed on income that is only potentially theirs.
Now, if you mean that there are deductions from income granted for certain things, well, yes, of course there are. But first you have to report the income to deduct it legally. I can't just change the amounts on my W2s when I want to deduct mortgage interest or charities. Neither can those awful rich people.
Certain tax investments available to those that can afford them also remove that income from taxes.
Of course. But that's different than not claiming the income in the first place, and deductions aren't limited to certain people. Of course if you can't afford to give $10,000 to charity you can't claim a $10,000 deduction on your tax form. You didn't give $10,000 to charity, the charity didn't get the benefit of $10,000, so why would you expect to be able to deduct a charitable contribution of that size that you didn't make? You also still have whatever money you didn't donate, and the rich person does not. He can't spend the $10,000 he gave to charity, the charity did get the benefit of $10,000, and so he should get the benefit of the deduction.
Those deductions are in addition to, and exactly like, what you and I see for on our tax forms.
Yes. They are on our tax forms, too. If we could qualify, we could take those deductions. But that's STILL different than not claiming the income.
Notice that if you make X dollars and can take 9,600.00 per person from your income, that income is removed and your taxable income is lower than you started with.
The personal exemption was $3900 for someone who made less than $250,000 AGI, but was zero for anyone over $397,500. (Source: here..) This same amount applies to dependents. That's the only "per person" number I know.
So, you should note that the awful rich people you hate so much don't get that deduction, at least not most of it. The latest number I have is for 2009 and the bottom end of the 1% was $343,927. I suspect that 2013 was higher, and it wouldn't take but $50k added to the bottom of that bracket to put that deduction out of reach entirely. And they don't get the child tax credit of $1000, which does nothing to reduce AGI but is a straight subtraction from the tax you owe. If you owed $1000 in taxes and had a child, and made less than $75,000 AGI, you would owe ZERO in taxes. If you managed to get your tax bill down to zero for the year and had an AGI of less than the stated amount, you'd get a check for $1000 from the other taxpayers.
It seems rather silly to complain about a deduction that rich people can't use when you're complaining about all the deductions the rich people have that you don't. Given that the latter is "none", it seems even sillier.
If a person pays a hundred thousand dollars to a tax account a year, are you foolish enough to believe t
The question is, was it really one of Mr. Wyden's supporters who ran that ad,
Good question. Yes.
In the case of James Clapper, the senator questioning him was Ron Wyden (D - Oregon) who is currently on the Select Committee on Intelligence and (I imagine) already very well knows all about PRISM and such.
As a constituent of Senator Wyden who has heard for years only glowing reviews of his personality and character, I'd like to point out one fact that everyone seems to be overlooking.
As you say, he already knew about PRISM, and was, in fact, making broad hints about the program for months. He knew about the program AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT. He has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and did nothing to stop PRISM from taking place. This leaves one of two situations, and I'll let you pick which you believe. Either the PRISM program is Constitutional, or Ron Wyden has broken his oath to us and abdicated his responsibility as the Senator he was elected to be and should therefore be recalled. (One of the clear duties of the Senate and House are as a check and balance upon the Executive branch. Civics 101.)
If you complain about the PRISM program trodding upon your Constitutional rights, you have Mr. Wyden to thank for not acting to stop it, and have chosen the latter position.
As an aside, Mr. Wyden is the politician who, while running for Senate the first time, promised to run a clean, honest, upfront campaign with no negative campaigning. Immediately following this pledge, advertisements began appearing against his opponent, Gordon Smith, claiming Smith "killed a kid" in the name of corporate profits. The truth was, a teenaged employee (legally employed) at Smith's farm died in an accident, and the parents of the teen appeared soon after the negative ads in ads for Smith absolving him of responsibility and blame.
Now, I don't know how that's going to work, but I can easily forsee a case of Google (for example) seeing a non-Google-approved android device showing up at the Play Store and the kill code being sent out... not saying Google would do that, but can you imagine the fun of a malicious app that lets you do something wonderful, for a week and then it shuts your device off permanently? No factory reset, no recovery. Dead.
I can actually believe that some large unnamed software company would include this code in their phones/tablets to prevent piracy of their software. Keep in mind the difficulty of upgrading the computer hardware using some unmentioned OSs because they base their license on things like the serial number of the hard drive. New hard drive, different system, no license. Brick. Buy smartphone with certain OS, buy software for it, screw up in license server. Brick.
Imagine the phun when someone discovers how to send this code to a phone via SMS? Hilarity ensues...
Based on their findings, Nutt pushed for the classification of illegal drugs based on actual harm, rather than arbitrarily as it still is now.
This is not a scientific issue, it is a legal and ethical issue. He was thus no longer speaking as a scientific advisor, he was taking a legal/political stance.
For this heinous crime he was sacked by the then Home Secretary,
OMG. He became an outspoken advocate against current government policy while being paid by the government to provide scientific input, and he got fired. How awful.
It seems that all governments are anti-scientific when the science contradicts their ridiculous ideologies, especially when it comes to drug policy.
Laws should and must include social considerations and not just be a reflection of scientific physical laws. While you may call that "anti-scientific", it really isn't. You may also call firing a scientist who has wandered into public policy "anti-scientific", but really, again, it isn't. "Use of drug X causes Y dollars in damage to society, using the following assumptions and cost analysis basis..." is science. "We should set the criminal level of use of drug X based on cost..." is a statement of a personal opinion.
"Yes, thank you, agrarian scientist, for the information that one person walking on a field of grass doesn't hurt the grass but may in fact help it. We're still going to make 'Do Not Walk On The Grass' signs legal and enforce them with trespass violations because the owner of the grass has property rights that your science doesn't consider."
Oooh, oooh, a car analogy just came to mind. "Thank you Dr. Traffic Safety Investigator, we understand that any distraction at all while driving can increase the chances of an accident. Unfortunately, it is politically and socially unacceptable to outlaw the use of the car radio or windshield wipers while the car is in motion, nor will we create a law limiting the driver's and passenger's freedom of speech by prohibiting all discussions during a drive. We may consider a law allowing the use of duct tape on small children in the back seat, however."
and preventively has forbidden the scientists to talk about it for good measure.
The article says nothing about prevention. It mentions one time when a scientist was asked not to speak to the press again. Ask. The rest of the complaint is that scientists who have signed the Official Secrets Act are hesitant to talk because THEY are afraid they might let something confidential slip out. Their fear, not a prohibition from the government, stops them from talking.
Two points. Great Britain does not have a 1st Amendment, and even if it did (or has something equivalent) these scientists have waived the rights it would grant by signing an agreement not to talk about certain things.
As for badgers, everyone knows that British badgers are a source of tuberculosis that is hurting the cows and beef/dairy production of small family farms, and that only addle-brained old women want to put up "badger crossing" signs. Doesn't anyone in England listen to The Archers anymore?
The corn or the people?
Depends on how GM the corn and the people are, and how many growth hormones etc are fed to each.
Wealthy people pay 8-10% tax on average while you and I pay 35-40%.
The numbers show otherwise.
Don't the top 5% make far more than 58% of all the income?
No. From here, the top 5% made 32% of the total AGI. That's far less than 58%.
The same link shows some amazing other numbers, like the average tax rate for the top 5% is more than 20%, while the average for all is only 11%, and the bottom 50% rate is less than 2%.
Warren Buffet was complaining that his secretary paid more in taxes than he did. That may be true, if Warren Buffet is a tax cheat. The average tax rate for the top 1% was 24%, while the average tax rate for the 25-50% group (AGI between $32k and $66k) was just 5.58%. I expect Buffet's AGI to be in the top 1%, so that 24% of his much larger income (>$343k) should be considerably larger than his secretary's 5.5% of $66k. Calculation: 24% of 343k is $82k. 5.5% of $66k is $3630. That's 22 times as much. Unless he's a cheat, or she's borrowing money to give the feds her entire salary plus extra money. I'd believe the former much sooner than I'd believe the latter.
Holy shit you're an idiot! Read this sentence:
Holy shit, I QUOTED that sentence. Did you miss the word "EMPLOYEES"? I guess so.
Now read this sentence: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines employment very broadly, i.e., "to suffer or permit to work."
Now read THIS sentence, which is in the same link:
I'm sure you didn't miss it, it's the very next sentence, clarifying the actual intent of FLSA and giving the sentiment of the court on the matter. It is a rather clear statement that the FLSA does NOT make all persons who "work upon the premises of another" an employee. No, they weren't talking about people who sneak in after hours to do things, they're talking about people who are doing things they are permitted to do.
Suppose you see a pile of scrap in my shop yard. You come to me and say "I'll cart that away for you for free." Fine with me, it saves me money paying someone to do it (a direct benefit to me and replacing work that I would have to assign to someone else), but I'm not paying you (you're not my employee). You say "that was fun, can I do it every week?" I say "sure". No laws are broken. You are permitted to work on my premises without me paying you and you are not my employee.
So, week five into this deal, I've not created much scrap, so you don't make more in selling it to someone else than it cost you to pick it up. Can you sue me for not "compensating" you sufficiently for your services as an employee? Nonsense. You're not my employee, and a lack of scrap doesn't turn you into one.
So, since (1) all "employees" of for-profit private-sector employers must be paid,
Not an issue.
and (2) all persons who the employer "suffer[s] or permit[s] to work" are "employees,"
No. SCOTUS has said that FLSA does not say that. You need to read the second sentence in the paragraph you quoted from.
I have no problems with the concept of laws protecting interns from bait-and-switch like you describe.
Why? You agreed to work for free, it's not like they've broken their agreement to pay you. You're not bound by any money, they aren't paying the bills so there's no hint of you being forced to stay there so you can feed the children or pay the rent.
You can walk away any time. The end result is no different than if you had asked to be a production person for free and they said no. They said yes, they said "do this other thing", you say no and walk away. Why do you need a law to cover this?