I'm not sure about these specific devices but the idea behind them is nothing new and they have been in existence for some time now. Most of them send an SMS text message every so often to a server that can plot the coordinates out. Some can send the info to your specific server removing third parties. Sometimes this is raw GPS data or some sort of code that shortens it with a time stamp. How often it's sent pretty much determines the costs of monitoring services. Some actively send, some can be turned on remotely and told to send.
I have seen some that can communicate directly with satellites and transmit from inside cargo containers, ships, and airplane hangars. If you look around, the UN actually has a spec on these and two types rates to be in compliance to monitoring and tracking their property as it get shipped around the world.
So basically what you're saying is that my WiFi is perfectly secure since I use a 60 or more character password that is composed of random numbers and symbols
There, FTFY. Almost all passwords are easy to brute force if "you can remember them". The amount of time involved is the real sticky part but that can be negated by knowing something about you or the company with the WIFI.
And that's only if you are attempting to crack the password itself by attacking the authentication packets. Even a good password becomes trivial if you can be tricked into going to certain websites or if someone actually has access to a system on the network wirelessly- even if just for a few minutes.
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more. Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it. Of course that's true to an extent, most jurisdictions (at least in the US) can only keep a certain percentage of revenue collected until a certain point is reached, the excess has to be spent or returned to the tax payer.
This is what has sparked most of the major budget problems we are seeing right now. You can't un-raise employees, so when the economy tanks and revenue drops, it's deficit hell or unpopular cuts in programs, or somehow raising taxes. None of which politicians want to do because it makes it hard to get reelected. Most governments went from "we need this to run" to how much can I spend. The later marks a shift in the deterioration of government and brings about favoritism, cronyism and the general environment of waste that seems embedded in the ineffective government we see today on most levels.
No, red light camera are not subsidizing your taxes, they are enabling government expansion.
The courts do not just let them get away with it. The supreme court ruled in a case concerning DUI checkpoints in Indiana that they are legal as long as the public has both sufficient notice and a reasonable route around them. They can't wait until the last minute and publish the info in some obscure newspaper that probably won't be distributed until after the check points and they can't close the roads around it down to force traffic through it. They has also outlaws drug checkpoints too.
The DHS gets away with it not because it's "in the name of keeping the country safe" but because it's traditionally handled by border agents (yes, even 100 miles inland from the border) which are now under the DHS. Furthermore, the supreme court has ruled on border searches in the past and declared that right of sovereignty (the right of a nation to exist relies on the ability to control what enters it's borders) surpasses the constitution as long as the search isn't overly invasive. It continues to define overly invasive- giving and taking from the constitution.
Apparently our founding fathers was ok with them too as they passed the very first warrantless search law concerning searches of ships entering US ports in the very first session of the US congress under the same principle.
First, I'm not really an authority on this as all I have done is used other people's tools and scripts and read their how-to's and so on. You can call me a script kiddie if you want. You will find a lot of reviews, including videos of people cracking WPA2=AES on the internet. Some of their methods work, some do not- don't get bogged down by the hirer ranked ones as I typically can't get them to work. My understanding is that AES is built into the WPA2 standards by default and your using it regardless. However, how it is used is important.
It's susceptible to dictionary attacks which is actually a lot easier then you think if you know how the person creating the key thinks and can get a known packet. Generally, as I mentioned before, they like to make the key something they can remember which means that a 10 digit phone number somehow associated with the internet account is typically what you need. Some people get a little more constructive but it all points back to the same security strengths of regular passwords I guess. There are attacks that if you can gain access to an existing connected computer (suppose you want on your work network -or girlfriend/neighbor's- network, but they won't give you the key- yet your work laptop -theirs if you have access to it briefly- is already connected), you can either attempt to extract the hash tables storing the key on the computer and crack the key there, or set up a monitoring server at a remote location, then go to a website while monitoring the traffic and then you can crack the encryption a lot more easier because you know a known packet before and after the encryption (details can be found on the web).
One of the drawbacks is that WPA2-AES is not typically used in a way that exploits it's strengths. It's like having a titanium luggage lock with 128 number combination and setting them all to 0-0, 1, 2, 3, 4. I have gotten access to WPA2-AES networks in the past, but the dictionary contained all of the phone numbers the site had and it also was one of the keys. No one seems to want to build a long key of random numbers and signs that they have to input into every wireless device needing access.
If you are worried about security, you shouldn't be running wireless at all- unless your ready to do some enterprise level security and run an IDS with access controls, a radius server, use EAP, and the lot AND have someone monitoring it regularly. Typically, when I do set up wireless networks for businesses that insist on them (granted I'm dealing with small businesses with less then 50 employees), I set them up outside the internal network entirely on it's own IP address then VPN the clients into the network as needed. There are drawbacks with that too. I guess my main point was that you just can't go to best buy and purchase a Dlink- throw it on the network and expect to be completely secure. Some information is more valuable then others as it could carry steep fines and possible jail time in addition to other liabilities if it got out depending on if some law covers it like HIPPA.
It doesn't need to be a complete or powerful router. And as far as I know, the only difference between a router and ad-hoc network support would be the software.
But alas, you are probably right, the costs would increase as they would view it as a feature or something even though there would probably only be another 200 lines of code or something.
In practice, I suspect most people setting up a 'phishing hole' WiFi hotspot, probably don't even worry about trying to attack the SSL connections, because that requires too much foreknowledge of what sites your targets would be visiting
It all depends on how much they want to invest in their attacks. I can see easy ways of doing it that wouldn't require breaking SSL traffic at all. First, look up a wifi pineapple. If you notice, they are using a regular wifi router with a hacked firmware stuffed into a seemingly innocent object. Just take that firmware a bit further by installing a proxy server that captures the key exchange then decode the traffic. Or better yet, rig the proxy to relay everything until it hits a bank site, then cause the page to reload with a dynamic copy of it to mimic the banking site, and refuse the first and second attempts to connect. You know have basically tricked them into entering their username/account numbers and passwords into something you can easily read. They will concentrate more on trying to type the account information in correctly then noticing the page changed slightly. Allow them through the second or third time unobstructed and they will simply think they fat fingered some character as they typed.
There used to be a proof of concept code that would pretty much do just that floating on the web but a quick search turned up nothing I recognized. It basically intercepted all web requests and relayed the page/pages requested to the user as if it was hosted on the gateway device itself. I think it could even mimic some self signed security certificates but had trouble with most of them. Either way, setting it to hit originally with the right page, forcing a reload with the faked page, then allowing the real page to pass could all be controlled with software and scripts giving access to most of the important stuff.
How about the printer software becomes it's own router that can be programmed into an ad-hoc network with all of it being turned off until it's actually turned on because it's needed or wanted? All you would have to do is install a program that listens for a key when you press a button on the printer. This software can either load that key into the wireless card or broadcast the correct key to the printer if a network is already set up.
You know, do it similar to how the linksys and netgear and dlink auto connect works.
Actually, it is pretty easy to hijack about any wireless network using WPA. WPA2 is only a tad bit more harder and both are easier then wep until you get into some business class security. Basically, all you need to do is flood the connection to force a reconnect between the devices then run a script or program on those packets.
It's actually a little more difficult then that, but once you find the right programs and the right hardware to work with them, it's not much more difficult then that. And the most difficult parts are already taken care of and reusable for the most part.
I have a laptop set up specifically to do this. Whenever I have a customer claim their rocket scientist nephew, or son, or the neibor's- dog's- sister's- aunt's cousin, or the time warner cable guy swears that wireless is safe and I don't know what I'm talking about, I simply tell them to go ahead and install it, then show up to ask how it's going with the wireless and show them that I'm already on the network. Sometimes I have to wait outside for about a half hour before I get it cracked, but I haven't ran into one wireless network yet that took longer then 2 hours to crack into. And yes, all the software needed is pretty much free and available on the interweb waiting to be downloaded and used. There is a pretty steep learning curve though but it's not that hard and there are a lot if tutorials out there. This is especially easy when the time warner guy and most outside techs try to use a phone number for the key phrase. Often, if you have a list of phone numbers to a building with wireless, going through those will get you a working key without needing all the monitoring and cracking software. Start with the Fax numbers as they are often tied to the DSL or the Cable Internet Phone which makes it easy for the technicians to find if they have to service it again.
Anyways, once you are on the network, it's pretty trivial to send command to any windows box to do things that give you more control. Especially if they have the power shell installed. Most firewalls don't screen addresses on the network as it seems to be universally trusted in most environments.
A few things to note about the class 7 Radio Active placards. If you are in a large city, often the law requires the truck to take a bypass route unless they are delivering inside the city, then you must take the most direct route to the destination. This is true for all Placarded Trucks and in most cases, even non-placarded Hazmat loads. (yes, there are some loads (or there were 10-15 years ago) that contain hazardous materials but not in a quantity to require being placarded but you had to otherwise follow the hazardous material routes.
The other thing is that certain types of X-ray films will require a 7.1 radioactive placard. I'm pretty sure they got rid of subclass placards for radioactive so it would just be a "7 radio active" placard now. I also had an old bomber sight from an some WWII bomber that was actually radioactive. I found it in a garage where I moved to and found out it was radioactive when attempting to see what it might be worth. I was able to FedEX it to a museum that handled it from there. Strangely, it was going to cost around $2500 to dispose of it, I couldn't legally sell it, and the museum took it for free but I had to pay an additional $10 to ship it to them.
Anyways, I figured I would mention that so you would know that simply staying off the outer belts of most large cities would be enough to avoid the class 7 placarded trucks and even if you get close to one, it's quite possible- actually more likely, that it is because of any number of relatively harmless materials in comparison. But yea, I agree, I wouldn't be following one either just because of what it might actually be.
You see, how I know your argument is wrong is because it consistently boils down to "they are rich and you are stupid for supporting the rich". That is the meat of your arguments that haven't failed under rudimentary examination so far. And you seem to want to make this argument even if the amount of support for the rich is fair. You have no special insight into anything, you are simply allowing your disdain for those with more then you cloud your judgment about very real things.
Your statement is generally true with an exception. I used to drive truck and got one of these loads (probably a decoy load). I wnet through a scale house and got poped for a random inspection and they wanted to open the cargo doors. I called the 800 number to declare the seal was being broken and before I got off the phone about 4 black SUVs entered the parking lot and stopped the inspection. Of course they claimed they were looking from something in another truck and required all the resorces of the DOT officers, but I suspected it was something different as the weight on the Bill of lading didn't seem to match the weight that was in the trailer.
As for the rules of war, Well they only apply once you are in an actual war. We wouldn't technically be in a war until invaded or congress declared war and the battlefield came to the homeland. Once war broke out in the area, then the rules of war would apply.
It's one of those depends on what the meaning of "is" is things.
Google, "Who Pays, a distributional analysis of tax systems in all 50 states, 2nd edition".
Yawn.. I have seen things like this before, it relies on percentage of income verses expeditures with sin taxes attached to them. As I said before, the same arguments can be made with people making the same income and not using certain services or purchasing items associated with sin taxes. Furthermore, the taxes associated with them are for specific reasons (or they were at one time) that is supposed to cover the use of them or problems society has to bear because of the use of them. It doesn't make sense to penalize someone who doesn't use them or to penalize them even more when they either consume more (gasoline) making it so they had paid more, or just because they are more wealthy and would likely pay for their own problems from the use.
Why... Because- we get the same deduction- about $6k. The effect of that deduction is to wipe out deductions for most (80% to 90%) people while giving huge deductions to the wealthy.
Please explain this newfangled math of yours. The rich then you are still paying more in taxes then you anyways. how does this huge deduction give them anything more then you?
If a rich person is ALREADY going to buy a $10 million dollar house (~$300,000 annual property taxes) is there SOME reason, you, me, the poor guy paying cigarette taxes should be covering $100,000 a year of the house payments for the rich person? How do you justify it?
You me or the poor guy paying the cigarette tax are not covering 100k a year of the house payments. Deductions on taxes are the government's way of saying spend money in this way. They can't come right out and say spend money here, what they do is create a cost (tax) then say if you do X, you can deduct a portion of the costs for X from the cost created (tax). In this case, they are saying own your own home.
Now I don't know where you took your civics class at (most likely public education in a large run down city), but the government doesn't have any right or entitlement to any tax outside what it takes to run the government and the programs it's legally allowed to have. When they tax someone, it's to raise revenue for that. When they assign deductions, it's to cover costs that are somehow negated by whatever the expense the deduction is allowed for. Just because the rich person with a 10m house gets a 100k benefit on their taxes still doesn't address the fact that they are paying a lot more in taxes then you.
Here is the problem. You've been successfully filled with propaganda fed to you by television stations owned by the wealthy. That *includes* "liberal" stations like CNN and MSNBC. You see the talking heads on those stations say the same thing, "Oh, we can't cut taxes on the wealthy because that will cost jobs". Well you know what- it DIDN'T COST JOBS FOR FRIKKIN DECADES. It doesn't work that way unless the wealthy seriously want to leave america and move to china or russia.
Perhaps it is you who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I mean hell, you are still attempting to argue that physically more is physically less because some statistical analysis can manipulate the numbers that way based on a percentage of income.
But lets do a simple mental exercise, Where are the jobs going to come from? People with money create jobs, people who are broke get stuck working at the jobs. Ok, I hope that wasn't too complicated, but lets move on. So, when the rich derive the majority of their income from investments, what happens when you raise the taxes on those investments? They hold onto them longer so they can make more money then the tax owed on them. If you invest 100k and expect a 10% return after a year, if taxes are at 15%, you need to make an actual 11.5% to cover the costs of taxes. Lets say this takes 1 year to do, now if you raise thos
I'm not missing anything here. Bolden is going to China to engage in a dialog, and it is but one squealing congressman (not even a committee or a large group of congressmen) that are complaining about him even engaging in a dialog claiming that's illegal. It isn't illegal and in fact a part of the direct responsibilities of the U.S. President through which Charles Bolden is acting with delegated authority.
It's illegal when that dialog is covering things expressly prohibited by congress in their funding of NASA.
If, and this is a big if, an agreement comes out of these meetings, it will be brought to Congress for their consideration.
That may be enough already to put Bolden and NASA in violation of the law. In past funding, it has been specifically denied to cooperate with china or spend tax dollars on attempting to cooperate with china on maned space flight.
No money is being spent, or for that matter even needed other than the transportation of the delegation itself. The President is certainly well within his authority to authorize that kind of travel and for Charles Bolden to involve itself in discussions with the Chinese government. This congressman is claiming that such a meeting is somehow illegal.
well, actually, the president may not have the authority to authorize that kind of travel. If congress expressly forbids tax payer money from being used in a certain way, the president can't just ignore them and do it anyways. Now he could possible find the funding from elsewhere and bypass congress altogether but he can't just ignore congress.
And yes, the congressman is claiming that the State purpose of the meeting according to NASA documents violates restrictions place into funding bills and therefore is illegal.
The Iran-Contra affair was involving much more than dialog and discussions. Yes, it was unconstitutional and exceeding the authority of the executive branch, but are you honestly telling me that what Charles Bolden is doing here is something that is illegal and somehow giving the Chinese something material like this? Congress simply can't tell the President to not negotiate with another country, even a nation under a declared state of war. That doesn't even seem to be the situation with China at the moment.
Wow.. The Iran Contra affairs was not unconstitutional. That was the entire point. Congress constitutionally limited the spending of tax payer dollars, the administration found a way to raise the money outside of tax payer dollars and diverted the money to what congress forbid the tax payer money to be spent on. It's the entire splitting hairs context to whether or not congress could pass a law (it could) and to whether or not the administration could bypass the law by getting around one of the key components (tax payer funding) which it later found it could.
And yes, I am saying that it's the same thing. congress has the power to forbid Tax payer funds from being used in a certain way. According to the article, they forbid NASA funding from being used to engage in talks about cooperation in the space program. And that is well within the constitutional right of congress.
Besides, the law that is being claimed to have been violated was never even passed by congress.
Actually, the law was supposedly placed in the last couple of funding bills. As far as I'm aware, those were passed into law, including the supplemental funding bill that reinstated a lot of the programs Obama cut. OF course I just read through the latest appropriations bill signed into law and didn't find anything concerning china unless it's pertaining to the assessments required of the Inspector General under section 3545 of title 44, United States Code listed in it's information security section. If this is the case, then we may never see explicit ins
If congress thinks that Charles Bolden is doing something worthy of impeachement, yes they as a body can do something about it. But seriously this is only a single congressman (out of 435) that is raising a complaint here and isn't even talking impeachment either for that matter as a possibility. He is only screaming that Bolden isn't jumping around like Congressional staffers.
This is all pointless to the point I was refuting. congress does have quite a bit of power here should they get behind this one man which seems to be the opposite point you were making.
Obama could even "promote" Bolden to be a Presidential assistant.... which doesn't need congressional confirmation and is out of reach of impeachent too. Really, it is up to whatever Obama wants out of Bolden, and everything I've seen him do is mostly as a lightning rod for what policies Obama doesn't want to directly articulate.
He could do that, but then Bolden couldn't hold onto his seat/position at NASA then either. You can't hold more then one government position without express congressional approval. You can't hold an office or title in another country without it either. But I guess if he was being moved to be an assistance instead of a cabinet member or head of some position because of being impeached, that wouldn't be much of an issue. However, any legislation the administration attempts to pass that might have had his input on it would likely be doomed from the start as congress won't take lightly- being surpassed like that.
ere is an agreement that comes out of this trip, it will be reported to Congress and it will be up to Congress to decide what it is that they want to do when that happens. So far it hasn't even been to that stage yet.Sure, but congress can already do something right now. You can't make an agreement if all the technology is all the sudden classified under export controls, you can't have an agreement about NASA if congress passes a law disbanding NASA and creates another agency to replace it that is forbidden in it's charter to cooperate with China. Hell, Congress can simply amend NASA's existing charter making it unable to collaborate with China at all meaning that anything the administration or Bolden does is doomed to failure before it even starts.
Otherwise, shy of an impeachment proceeding, Congress can only restrict funding. It can't stop negotiations or somebody acting like Bolden to at least see what potential opportunities might be available.
No, actually, congress has a lot more of an arsenal then that. That was the point of my post, they can get rid of NASA altogether, make any exchange of technology illegal (which a large sum already is), or a number of other things.
Dear fucking liar Dumbass, His words included: "Or a summary thereof?" (which you, lying by omission, omitted)
Dear fucking stupid idiot. A summer thereof means a summery of the fucking "law" you were suppose to read before opining, not some article in a newspaper that is more opinion then fact. And no, not mentioning the summery is not lieing by omission as it's not even relevant because you still failed drastically in the task. You see, my point still stands as argues despite your inability to focus your reading comprehension skill to the task. In short, you did exactly what you were doing in the first place that sparked the entire comment about you actually reading the law before showing how stupid you are.
And I pointed to a number of summaries that lead directly to the same conclusion I presented, taken because of the popularity of the link, not because they supported me (though every summary of the law I read supported my statement, and not a single one supported yours or his).
As I pointed out before, you suffered from selection bias because you went searching for articles that support your theory. The great thing about a search nowadays is that the wording of the search can drastically effect the ranking of articles returned as it's attempting to return articles you searched for. This is why the comment was about summaries thereof, meaning direct summaries of the law, not opinion laden newspaper articles that favor your preconceived notions. This is why I also presented links to the actual fucking laws which it appeared you totally ignored in preference for the opinions of others. If you can't be bothered to actually read the laws or a summary of the law without all the opinion attached to it, then you probably aren't remotely qualified to talk about it. In essence, you are arguing the sky is pink because you found search results when searching for "the sky is pink" and you are refusing to go outside and simply look up. That types of wilful ignorance is nothing short of clear fraud and intellectual laziness.
Again, lies.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. It's not something you can just banter around every time you want to close your eyes to the real facts in order to support some incorrect preconceived notion.
The law has, to my knowledge, not yet been enforced.
Actually, its being enforce right now, Only a portion of the law was blocked by the court and it was blocked because of some conflict with federal law that could divert resources and "impose a burden on federal law enforcement and are "preempted" by federal law". Preempted meaning it's a mirror of federal law as the law does nothing more then state that if after lawful contact with anyone, if their immigration status is in question, they need to verify it before releasing them unless it interferes with an ongoing investigation. Portions of it are in effect outside of the holding people until their legal residence can be established.
I know you progressives want the activist judges to rule your way, but "lawful contact" is required, and that is a currently undefined term. If I'm incorrect, please point out the law that defines it. If it is not defined in law, then it's up to your activist judges to make it whatever you want it to be.
Actually, this has already been determined which is why I told you to investigate what a Terry Stop it. It's defined as if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. And this law expressly forbids immigration status as being part of that as it only enables their status checks after a "lawful contact" has been made. Furthermore, it's extremely easy to prove citizenship or legal status, all you have to do is present a proper state, federal, military, or government issued ID or reference that you hav
Actually, you are a tad bit wrong even though you are mostly correct.
NASA is a congressional construct and can be dissolved just as easy. There are relatively few constitutional posts that the president is entitled to have which is why congress had to charter NASA by law to create it. Congress can most certainly de-fund NASA as well as dissolve it as a post completely.
Further more, congress has the power and ability to impeach any appointed person that it approved as well as the president and vice president (they are even over the supreme court in this). They have used this power primarily for judges in the past and only for extreme instances where they were needed. Congress can simply impeach Bolden and remove him from running NASA or more likely, the president would ask him to resign or remove him himself in order to avoid a major conflict with congress as he is reliant on them to pursue his agenda.
So while you are right in that Bolden serves at the pleasure of the president, congress can still remove him or even the entire department that he is head of. And all of this doesn't take into account all of the technology that might be shared which could be classified as a weapon making it impossible for Bolden or anyone else to legally collaborate with China on any space flights. If encryption and agricultural chemical spayers can be listed, then anything capable of orbiting or flying over the US can as well.
Anything the president negotiates is worthless unless the congress ratifies it. Congress has in the past constitutionally withheld funding or passed laws declaring no funding can be used for certain things. This is what got Reagan in trouble with the Iran Contra affairs. It would not be, and is not unconstitutional for congress to do this. The administration isn't being limited either as they can simply find outside sources of funding which is also what got the bunch behind Iran-Contra out of hot water on appeals (their actions didn't violate the Beale amendment because they were selling weapons that were being destroyed (outside a useful life in our military) in order to gain financing to purchase weapons from outside sources and funnel them or the find to Iran for the hostage release.
Congress can most certainly pass laws dictating that no funding it authorizes is authorized to be used for a certain way. And if the administration violates that law, people can and have been held accountable in the past for it.
Well, seeing how this is the UK and they outlawed personal possession of a firearm in most situations, I doubt that would be the case.
However, seeing how there is the possibility that he is a crook much like I was planning to be, I would just put a bullet in his head first then. I can shoot a 1 inch group at 200 yards with my WWII era 308.
The problem is solved when he realizes that without LEO's protecting his property too, the poor is very much at the same risk as the rich. Perhaps even more of a risk as the rich can have guns in their possession much more easily and hire their own personal police department in the form of security guards. The point I was attempting to make is that his comment about comparing welfare with property laws and "my taxes shouldn't go towards protecting your house/car/life", are stupid at best. He claims to be prepared to defend himself and his property but history has shown us time and time again that the people who think they are the most prepared are the ones who lose first. Just look at the french who didn't think the Germans were a threat because of the Maginot line or even in modern times where we didn't think the Taliban or Iraqi resistance stood much of a chance against a more prepared army.
In the U.S., the wealthy pay a lower tax rate percentage than the rest. MUCH lower.
Per Warren Buffet, he pays about 17% while his secretary pays over 30%.
Actually, that is wrong in conclusion but he did say it. The difference is that Buffet's income is primarily from capitol gains which is or was locked in at 15%. His secretary doesn't earn income primarily from the sale of possessions she purchased earlier so it's taxed differently. Warren Buffet also shields a lot of his income through holding companies that doesn't necessarily remove tax obligations, they just disperse them differently. All of the companies making money for Buffet pay taxes on every dollar brought in so that 17% is more like 32% when you figure another 15% in taxes was dealt with before he even funneled it to himself.
Anyways, the point is, you are not comparing directly comparable items here. Income from investments (capitol gains) is not the same as income from trading time and effort for a paycheck. If Buffet had gained all of his income for the year from a salary position like his secretary, he would have been paying closer to 37% or perhaps even closer to 55% if you consider all the state and local taxes.
And this doesn't even begin to measure the actual dollar amount paid in. If his secretary paid in 30% of a 100k salary, she would have paid close to 30K in taxes. If Buffet paid 17% of 1,000,000,000 , he would have paid 170k or 1.7 times his secretaries entire salary. In contrast, this is roughly more then 5 times what his secretary paid. How you can claim with an honest face that more then five times as much as something is less then that something.
A rich man smokes a pack of cigarettes, they pay the same tax as a poor man.
And your point is what? Are you advocating that we should have to carry w2 statements to the store to buy a pack of smokes? You are aware that the majority of rich people do not smoke aren't you? Smoking is primarily a poor mans sport anyways.
The lower the income, the higher tax "rate" for things like cigarettes, gasoline, cell phones, everything else.
That's sort of inconsequential as it's fundamentally built into use taxes. The reason they are there is to discourage the use of them an to capitalize on the people with addictions who find it necessary to purchase them. Rich people get treatments for their addictions, poor people do not. Governments rely on this which is why they tax smokes and gasoline. Although the gasoline is generally graduated with the consumption of the vehicle and rich people tend to drive more gas hungry vehicles for their comforts which defaults into them paying more taxes anyways.
In texas, the wealthy pay.03% tax rate and the poor pay over 10% tax rate.
Please point me to some study or something that isn't a complete load of bullshit to verify this. The income tax rate is different for the rich in texas and all the effective tax rates I have seen assumes (incorrectly) that people activly use items with use taxes on them. Your comment is just as accurate if words as "In texas, the poor pay.03% tax rate and the poor pay over 10% tax rate, depending on what other use taxes they subject themselves to."
They also "tax advantage" their income so most pay dividend and long term capital gains rates- not the highest federal income tax rate.
So? They don't have access to the money like income while it's there, what makes the difference? Unless their income is in a tax deferred investment vehicle (typically a Roth IRA or some other retirement program), taxes are already paid on the traditional income that goes into the investments in the first place. Dividend income is taxes at the normal taxable income rates and capitol gains is taxes at a fixed rate separated from
It's interesting that you mentioned laws and enforcement. If there was no retribution from the law, I would probably come to your village and show you just how unprepared you actually are and take your shit.
And yes, with my simple knowledge of science, the internal combustion engine, and machine automation, I could build firearms that would turn England's little shotguns into sticks and stones by comparison. But hey, we can turn the streets of England into the old OK Corral if you want to. It's not like the cops would protect you as you don't think your taxes shouldn't go to protect your "house/car/life", if the cut down on welfare.
I agree with you for the most part except for the 2 second rule. This is really a rule that can be complicated as the heavier the vehicle becomes, the more time/distance you need in between. What I'm getting at is that in a compact or subcompact, 2 seconds should probably be more then enough. But when you graduate to a SUV or pickup truck, the weight difference make be enough to make that 2 seconds insufficient space to stop safely and you need to bump it up to 3 seconds or so on dry pavement. This is especially true if you are following a smaller vehicle that can stop faster.
While I like the idea of time spaces in between vehicles because it automatically adjusts the distances based around the speed being traveled, I think a more appropriate rule similar to 2 seconds for anything under 1.5 tons and perhaps an extra second of half second for every 1500-2000 pounds more for a standard 2 axle vehicle. (dealing with 18 wheelers or 6 axle dump trucks and so on would be way more complicated because of increased friction with the road surface)
You are most likely right that a blood test is still better then a breathalyzer test. It's definitely easier to get the results challenged when you know about all the certification steps, procedural differences, handling qualifications, and so on. This is also one reason why you need a qualified lawyer who specializes in DUIs and drug arrests as well as attempting to educate yourself as much as possible if you ever find yourself in a position where a BAC test can have a negative impact on you.
Many states, including Ohio has a provision that allows you to request a Blood test. However, in these same states, the cops aren't always willing to get you one and no court case that I am aware of has ever thrown out their evidence when one wasn't provided.
Also, a blood test is no always accurate for the same reasons that breathalyzer machines might not be. If the person extracting the blood isn't certified or if they don't like you, they can use alcohol based swabs to clean the area the needle will puncture the skin. This creates a residue that will have an impact on the measures BAC. There is also a problem with anticoagulants, some which can't be used with a blood test for BAC but are perfectly capable of being used for other lab work. Then you have the problems of blood separation if no or the wrong type of coagulant is used or the lack of proper handling (for the type of anticoagulant) happens and the alcohol concentration will deviate between whole blood and blood serum levels.
Believe it or not, not all hospitals are certified to extract blood for BAC testing and not all employees are certified to handle it during extraction or after it. You could end up with an employee that is either incompetent for the task or malicious in the application of duties, all of which could cause the results to be just as tainted.
There is no cab service that will pick me up at my house and no cab service in the nearest town that will run after 9 pm on the weekends or 8pm on the weekdays. And if you was here a few years ago, those cabs didn't even exist.
MADD is a bunch of assholes. They attempt to take the legal limit down to a point that is too low, already it's at.08 in most states and they are trying to drop it below that to.02 and.04 which is insane. At least get the legal limits to just below what a normal person would become more of a danger in a car then they already are. When the legal limit was.01, the amount of fatal accidents wasn't any higher for alcohol being the contributing factor when the BAC was at or below it. It's just a bunch of feel good BS now and a bunch of politicians saw a way to try and control the populous while extracting money from them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure about these specific devices but the idea behind them is nothing new and they have been in existence for some time now. Most of them send an SMS text message every so often to a server that can plot the coordinates out. Some can send the info to your specific server removing third parties. Sometimes this is raw GPS data or some sort of code that shortens it with a time stamp. How often it's sent pretty much determines the costs of monitoring services. Some actively send, some can be turned on remotely and told to send.
I have seen some that can communicate directly with satellites and transmit from inside cargo containers, ships, and airplane hangars. If you look around, the UN actually has a spec on these and two types rates to be in compliance to monitoring and tracking their property as it get shipped around the world.
There, FTFY. Almost all passwords are easy to brute force if "you can remember them". The amount of time involved is the real sticky part but that can be negated by knowing something about you or the company with the WIFI.
And that's only if you are attempting to crack the password itself by attacking the authentication packets. Even a good password becomes trivial if you can be tricked into going to certain websites or if someone actually has access to a system on the network wirelessly- even if just for a few minutes.
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more. Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it. Of course that's true to an extent, most jurisdictions (at least in the US) can only keep a certain percentage of revenue collected until a certain point is reached, the excess has to be spent or returned to the tax payer.
This is what has sparked most of the major budget problems we are seeing right now. You can't un-raise employees, so when the economy tanks and revenue drops, it's deficit hell or unpopular cuts in programs, or somehow raising taxes. None of which politicians want to do because it makes it hard to get reelected. Most governments went from "we need this to run" to how much can I spend. The later marks a shift in the deterioration of government and brings about favoritism, cronyism and the general environment of waste that seems embedded in the ineffective government we see today on most levels.
No, red light camera are not subsidizing your taxes, they are enabling government expansion.
The courts do not just let them get away with it. The supreme court ruled in a case concerning DUI checkpoints in Indiana that they are legal as long as the public has both sufficient notice and a reasonable route around them. They can't wait until the last minute and publish the info in some obscure newspaper that probably won't be distributed until after the check points and they can't close the roads around it down to force traffic through it. They has also outlaws drug checkpoints too.
The DHS gets away with it not because it's "in the name of keeping the country safe" but because it's traditionally handled by border agents (yes, even 100 miles inland from the border) which are now under the DHS. Furthermore, the supreme court has ruled on border searches in the past and declared that right of sovereignty (the right of a nation to exist relies on the ability to control what enters it's borders) surpasses the constitution as long as the search isn't overly invasive. It continues to define overly invasive- giving and taking from the constitution.
Apparently our founding fathers was ok with them too as they passed the very first warrantless search law concerning searches of ships entering US ports in the very first session of the US congress under the same principle.
First, I'm not really an authority on this as all I have done is used other people's tools and scripts and read their how-to's and so on. You can call me a script kiddie if you want. You will find a lot of reviews, including videos of people cracking WPA2=AES on the internet. Some of their methods work, some do not- don't get bogged down by the hirer ranked ones as I typically can't get them to work. My understanding is that AES is built into the WPA2 standards by default and your using it regardless. However, how it is used is important.
It's susceptible to dictionary attacks which is actually a lot easier then you think if you know how the person creating the key thinks and can get a known packet. Generally, as I mentioned before, they like to make the key something they can remember which means that a 10 digit phone number somehow associated with the internet account is typically what you need. Some people get a little more constructive but it all points back to the same security strengths of regular passwords I guess. There are attacks that if you can gain access to an existing connected computer (suppose you want on your work network -or girlfriend/neighbor's- network, but they won't give you the key- yet your work laptop -theirs if you have access to it briefly- is already connected), you can either attempt to extract the hash tables storing the key on the computer and crack the key there, or set up a monitoring server at a remote location, then go to a website while monitoring the traffic and then you can crack the encryption a lot more easier because you know a known packet before and after the encryption (details can be found on the web).
One of the drawbacks is that WPA2-AES is not typically used in a way that exploits it's strengths. It's like having a titanium luggage lock with 128 number combination and setting them all to 0-0, 1, 2, 3, 4. I have gotten access to WPA2-AES networks in the past, but the dictionary contained all of the phone numbers the site had and it also was one of the keys. No one seems to want to build a long key of random numbers and signs that they have to input into every wireless device needing access.
If you are worried about security, you shouldn't be running wireless at all- unless your ready to do some enterprise level security and run an IDS with access controls, a radius server, use EAP, and the lot AND have someone monitoring it regularly. Typically, when I do set up wireless networks for businesses that insist on them (granted I'm dealing with small businesses with less then 50 employees), I set them up outside the internal network entirely on it's own IP address then VPN the clients into the network as needed. There are drawbacks with that too. I guess my main point was that you just can't go to best buy and purchase a Dlink- throw it on the network and expect to be completely secure. Some information is more valuable then others as it could carry steep fines and possible jail time in addition to other liabilities if it got out depending on if some law covers it like HIPPA.
It doesn't need to be a complete or powerful router. And as far as I know, the only difference between a router and ad-hoc network support would be the software.
But alas, you are probably right, the costs would increase as they would view it as a feature or something even though there would probably only be another 200 lines of code or something.
It all depends on how much they want to invest in their attacks. I can see easy ways of doing it that wouldn't require breaking SSL traffic at all. First, look up a wifi pineapple. If you notice, they are using a regular wifi router with a hacked firmware stuffed into a seemingly innocent object. Just take that firmware a bit further by installing a proxy server that captures the key exchange then decode the traffic. Or better yet, rig the proxy to relay everything until it hits a bank site, then cause the page to reload with a dynamic copy of it to mimic the banking site, and refuse the first and second attempts to connect. You know have basically tricked them into entering their username/account numbers and passwords into something you can easily read. They will concentrate more on trying to type the account information in correctly then noticing the page changed slightly. Allow them through the second or third time unobstructed and they will simply think they fat fingered some character as they typed.
There used to be a proof of concept code that would pretty much do just that floating on the web but a quick search turned up nothing I recognized. It basically intercepted all web requests and relayed the page/pages requested to the user as if it was hosted on the gateway device itself. I think it could even mimic some self signed security certificates but had trouble with most of them. Either way, setting it to hit originally with the right page, forcing a reload with the faked page, then allowing the real page to pass could all be controlled with software and scripts giving access to most of the important stuff.
How about the printer software becomes it's own router that can be programmed into an ad-hoc network with all of it being turned off until it's actually turned on because it's needed or wanted? All you would have to do is install a program that listens for a key when you press a button on the printer. This software can either load that key into the wireless card or broadcast the correct key to the printer if a network is already set up.
You know, do it similar to how the linksys and netgear and dlink auto connect works.
Actually, it is pretty easy to hijack about any wireless network using WPA. WPA2 is only a tad bit more harder and both are easier then wep until you get into some business class security. Basically, all you need to do is flood the connection to force a reconnect between the devices then run a script or program on those packets.
It's actually a little more difficult then that, but once you find the right programs and the right hardware to work with them, it's not much more difficult then that. And the most difficult parts are already taken care of and reusable for the most part.
I have a laptop set up specifically to do this. Whenever I have a customer claim their rocket scientist nephew, or son, or the neibor's- dog's- sister's- aunt's cousin, or the time warner cable guy swears that wireless is safe and I don't know what I'm talking about, I simply tell them to go ahead and install it, then show up to ask how it's going with the wireless and show them that I'm already on the network. Sometimes I have to wait outside for about a half hour before I get it cracked, but I haven't ran into one wireless network yet that took longer then 2 hours to crack into. And yes, all the software needed is pretty much free and available on the interweb waiting to be downloaded and used. There is a pretty steep learning curve though but it's not that hard and there are a lot if tutorials out there. This is especially easy when the time warner guy and most outside techs try to use a phone number for the key phrase. Often, if you have a list of phone numbers to a building with wireless, going through those will get you a working key without needing all the monitoring and cracking software. Start with the Fax numbers as they are often tied to the DSL or the Cable Internet Phone which makes it easy for the technicians to find if they have to service it again.
Anyways, once you are on the network, it's pretty trivial to send command to any windows box to do things that give you more control. Especially if they have the power shell installed. Most firewalls don't screen addresses on the network as it seems to be universally trusted in most environments.
A few things to note about the class 7 Radio Active placards. If you are in a large city, often the law requires the truck to take a bypass route unless they are delivering inside the city, then you must take the most direct route to the destination. This is true for all Placarded Trucks and in most cases, even non-placarded Hazmat loads. (yes, there are some loads (or there were 10-15 years ago) that contain hazardous materials but not in a quantity to require being placarded but you had to otherwise follow the hazardous material routes.
The other thing is that certain types of X-ray films will require a 7.1 radioactive placard. I'm pretty sure they got rid of subclass placards for radioactive so it would just be a "7 radio active" placard now. I also had an old bomber sight from an some WWII bomber that was actually radioactive. I found it in a garage where I moved to and found out it was radioactive when attempting to see what it might be worth. I was able to FedEX it to a museum that handled it from there. Strangely, it was going to cost around $2500 to dispose of it, I couldn't legally sell it, and the museum took it for free but I had to pay an additional $10 to ship it to them.
Anyways, I figured I would mention that so you would know that simply staying off the outer belts of most large cities would be enough to avoid the class 7 placarded trucks and even if you get close to one, it's quite possible- actually more likely, that it is because of any number of relatively harmless materials in comparison. But yea, I agree, I wouldn't be following one either just because of what it might actually be.
You see, how I know your argument is wrong is because it consistently boils down to "they are rich and you are stupid for supporting the rich". That is the meat of your arguments that haven't failed under rudimentary examination so far. And you seem to want to make this argument even if the amount of support for the rich is fair. You have no special insight into anything, you are simply allowing your disdain for those with more then you cloud your judgment about very real things.
Your statement is generally true with an exception. I used to drive truck and got one of these loads (probably a decoy load). I wnet through a scale house and got poped for a random inspection and they wanted to open the cargo doors. I called the 800 number to declare the seal was being broken and before I got off the phone about 4 black SUVs entered the parking lot and stopped the inspection. Of course they claimed they were looking from something in another truck and required all the resorces of the DOT officers, but I suspected it was something different as the weight on the Bill of lading didn't seem to match the weight that was in the trailer.
As for the rules of war, Well they only apply once you are in an actual war. We wouldn't technically be in a war until invaded or congress declared war and the battlefield came to the homeland. Once war broke out in the area, then the rules of war would apply.
It's one of those depends on what the meaning of "is" is things.
Yawn.. I have seen things like this before, it relies on percentage of income verses expeditures with sin taxes attached to them. As I said before, the same arguments can be made with people making the same income and not using certain services or purchasing items associated with sin taxes. Furthermore, the taxes associated with them are for specific reasons (or they were at one time) that is supposed to cover the use of them or problems society has to bear because of the use of them. It doesn't make sense to penalize someone who doesn't use them or to penalize them even more when they either consume more (gasoline) making it so they had paid more, or just because they are more wealthy and would likely pay for their own problems from the use.
Please explain this newfangled math of yours. The rich then you are still paying more in taxes then you anyways. how does this huge deduction give them anything more then you?
You me or the poor guy paying the cigarette tax are not covering 100k a year of the house payments. Deductions on taxes are the government's way of saying spend money in this way. They can't come right out and say spend money here, what they do is create a cost (tax) then say if you do X, you can deduct a portion of the costs for X from the cost created (tax). In this case, they are saying own your own home.
Now I don't know where you took your civics class at (most likely public education in a large run down city), but the government doesn't have any right or entitlement to any tax outside what it takes to run the government and the programs it's legally allowed to have. When they tax someone, it's to raise revenue for that. When they assign deductions, it's to cover costs that are somehow negated by whatever the expense the deduction is allowed for. Just because the rich person with a 10m house gets a 100k benefit on their taxes still doesn't address the fact that they are paying a lot more in taxes then you.
Perhaps it is you who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I mean hell, you are still attempting to argue that physically more is physically less because some statistical analysis can manipulate the numbers that way based on a percentage of income.
But lets do a simple mental exercise, Where are the jobs going to come from? People with money create jobs, people who are broke get stuck working at the jobs. Ok, I hope that wasn't too complicated, but lets move on. So, when the rich derive the majority of their income from investments, what happens when you raise the taxes on those investments? They hold onto them longer so they can make more money then the tax owed on them. If you invest 100k and expect a 10% return after a year, if taxes are at 15%, you need to make an actual 11.5% to cover the costs of taxes. Lets say this takes 1 year to do, now if you raise thos
It's illegal when that dialog is covering things expressly prohibited by congress in their funding of NASA.
That may be enough already to put Bolden and NASA in violation of the law. In past funding, it has been specifically denied to cooperate with china or spend tax dollars on attempting to cooperate with china on maned space flight.
well, actually, the president may not have the authority to authorize that kind of travel. If congress expressly forbids tax payer money from being used in a certain way, the president can't just ignore them and do it anyways. Now he could possible find the funding from elsewhere and bypass congress altogether but he can't just ignore congress.
And yes, the congressman is claiming that the State purpose of the meeting according to NASA documents violates restrictions place into funding bills and therefore is illegal.
Wow.. The Iran Contra affairs was not unconstitutional. That was the entire point. Congress constitutionally limited the spending of tax payer dollars, the administration found a way to raise the money outside of tax payer dollars and diverted the money to what congress forbid the tax payer money to be spent on. It's the entire splitting hairs context to whether or not congress could pass a law (it could) and to whether or not the administration could bypass the law by getting around one of the key components (tax payer funding) which it later found it could.
And yes, I am saying that it's the same thing. congress has the power to forbid Tax payer funds from being used in a certain way. According to the article, they forbid NASA funding from being used to engage in talks about cooperation in the space program. And that is well within the constitutional right of congress.
Actually, the law was supposedly placed in the last couple of funding bills. As far as I'm aware, those were passed into law, including the supplemental funding bill that reinstated a lot of the programs Obama cut. OF course I just read through the latest appropriations bill signed into law and didn't find anything concerning china unless it's pertaining to the assessments required of the Inspector General under section 3545 of title 44, United States Code listed in it's information security section. If this is the case, then we may never see explicit ins
This is all pointless to the point I was refuting. congress does have quite a bit of power here should they get behind this one man which seems to be the opposite point you were making.
He could do that, but then Bolden couldn't hold onto his seat/position at NASA then either. You can't hold more then one government position without express congressional approval. You can't hold an office or title in another country without it either. But I guess if he was being moved to be an assistance instead of a cabinet member or head of some position because of being impeached, that wouldn't be much of an issue. However, any legislation the administration attempts to pass that might have had his input on it would likely be doomed from the start as congress won't take lightly- being surpassed like that.
Dear fucking stupid idiot. A summer thereof means a summery of the fucking "law" you were suppose to read before opining, not some article in a newspaper that is more opinion then fact. And no, not mentioning the summery is not lieing by omission as it's not even relevant because you still failed drastically in the task. You see, my point still stands as argues despite your inability to focus your reading comprehension skill to the task. In short, you did exactly what you were doing in the first place that sparked the entire comment about you actually reading the law before showing how stupid you are.
As I pointed out before, you suffered from selection bias because you went searching for articles that support your theory. The great thing about a search nowadays is that the wording of the search can drastically effect the ranking of articles returned as it's attempting to return articles you searched for. This is why the comment was about summaries thereof, meaning direct summaries of the law, not opinion laden newspaper articles that favor your preconceived notions. This is why I also presented links to the actual fucking laws which it appeared you totally ignored in preference for the opinions of others. If you can't be bothered to actually read the laws or a summary of the law without all the opinion attached to it, then you probably aren't remotely qualified to talk about it. In essence, you are arguing the sky is pink because you found search results when searching for "the sky is pink" and you are refusing to go outside and simply look up. That types of wilful ignorance is nothing short of clear fraud and intellectual laziness.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. It's not something you can just banter around every time you want to close your eyes to the real facts in order to support some incorrect preconceived notion.
Actually, its being enforce right now, Only a portion of the law was blocked by the court and it was blocked because of some conflict with federal law that could divert resources and "impose a burden on federal law enforcement and are "preempted" by federal law". Preempted meaning it's a mirror of federal law as the law does nothing more then state that if after lawful contact with anyone, if their immigration status is in question, they need to verify it before releasing them unless it interferes with an ongoing investigation. Portions of it are in effect outside of the holding people until their legal residence can be established.
Actually, this has already been determined which is why I told you to investigate what a Terry Stop it. It's defined as if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. And this law expressly forbids immigration status as being part of that as it only enables their status checks after a "lawful contact" has been made. Furthermore, it's extremely easy to prove citizenship or legal status, all you have to do is present a proper state, federal, military, or government issued ID or reference that you hav
Actually, you are a tad bit wrong even though you are mostly correct.
NASA is a congressional construct and can be dissolved just as easy. There are relatively few constitutional posts that the president is entitled to have which is why congress had to charter NASA by law to create it. Congress can most certainly de-fund NASA as well as dissolve it as a post completely.
Further more, congress has the power and ability to impeach any appointed person that it approved as well as the president and vice president (they are even over the supreme court in this). They have used this power primarily for judges in the past and only for extreme instances where they were needed. Congress can simply impeach Bolden and remove him from running NASA or more likely, the president would ask him to resign or remove him himself in order to avoid a major conflict with congress as he is reliant on them to pursue his agenda.
So while you are right in that Bolden serves at the pleasure of the president, congress can still remove him or even the entire department that he is head of. And all of this doesn't take into account all of the technology that might be shared which could be classified as a weapon making it impossible for Bolden or anyone else to legally collaborate with China on any space flights. If encryption and agricultural chemical spayers can be listed, then anything capable of orbiting or flying over the US can as well.
Your missing his point in favor of your own.
Anything the president negotiates is worthless unless the congress ratifies it. Congress has in the past constitutionally withheld funding or passed laws declaring no funding can be used for certain things. This is what got Reagan in trouble with the Iran Contra affairs. It would not be, and is not unconstitutional for congress to do this. The administration isn't being limited either as they can simply find outside sources of funding which is also what got the bunch behind Iran-Contra out of hot water on appeals (their actions didn't violate the Beale amendment because they were selling weapons that were being destroyed (outside a useful life in our military) in order to gain financing to purchase weapons from outside sources and funnel them or the find to Iran for the hostage release.
Congress can most certainly pass laws dictating that no funding it authorizes is authorized to be used for a certain way. And if the administration violates that law, people can and have been held accountable in the past for it.
Well, seeing how this is the UK and they outlawed personal possession of a firearm in most situations, I doubt that would be the case.
However, seeing how there is the possibility that he is a crook much like I was planning to be, I would just put a bullet in his head first then. I can shoot a 1 inch group at 200 yards with my WWII era 308.
The problem is solved when he realizes that without LEO's protecting his property too, the poor is very much at the same risk as the rich. Perhaps even more of a risk as the rich can have guns in their possession much more easily and hire their own personal police department in the form of security guards. The point I was attempting to make is that his comment about comparing welfare with property laws and "my taxes shouldn't go towards protecting your house/car/life", are stupid at best. He claims to be prepared to defend himself and his property but history has shown us time and time again that the people who think they are the most prepared are the ones who lose first. Just look at the french who didn't think the Germans were a threat because of the Maginot line or even in modern times where we didn't think the Taliban or Iraqi resistance stood much of a chance against a more prepared army.
Actually, that is wrong in conclusion but he did say it. The difference is that Buffet's income is primarily from capitol gains which is or was locked in at 15%. His secretary doesn't earn income primarily from the sale of possessions she purchased earlier so it's taxed differently. Warren Buffet also shields a lot of his income through holding companies that doesn't necessarily remove tax obligations, they just disperse them differently. All of the companies making money for Buffet pay taxes on every dollar brought in so that 17% is more like 32% when you figure another 15% in taxes was dealt with before he even funneled it to himself.
Anyways, the point is, you are not comparing directly comparable items here. Income from investments (capitol gains) is not the same as income from trading time and effort for a paycheck. If Buffet had gained all of his income for the year from a salary position like his secretary, he would have been paying closer to 37% or perhaps even closer to 55% if you consider all the state and local taxes.
And this doesn't even begin to measure the actual dollar amount paid in. If his secretary paid in 30% of a 100k salary, she would have paid close to 30K in taxes. If Buffet paid 17% of 1,000,000,000 , he would have paid 170k or 1.7 times his secretaries entire salary. In contrast, this is roughly more then 5 times what his secretary paid. How you can claim with an honest face that more then five times as much as something is less then that something.
And your point is what? Are you advocating that we should have to carry w2 statements to the store to buy a pack of smokes? You are aware that the majority of rich people do not smoke aren't you? Smoking is primarily a poor mans sport anyways.
That's sort of inconsequential as it's fundamentally built into use taxes. The reason they are there is to discourage the use of them an to capitalize on the people with addictions who find it necessary to purchase them. Rich people get treatments for their addictions, poor people do not. Governments rely on this which is why they tax smokes and gasoline. Although the gasoline is generally graduated with the consumption of the vehicle and rich people tend to drive more gas hungry vehicles for their comforts which defaults into them paying more taxes anyways.
Please point me to some study or something that isn't a complete load of bullshit to verify this. The income tax rate is different for the rich in texas and all the effective tax rates I have seen assumes (incorrectly) that people activly use items with use taxes on them. Your comment is just as accurate if words as "In texas, the poor pay .03% tax rate and the poor pay over 10% tax rate, depending on what other use taxes they subject themselves to."
So? They don't have access to the money like income while it's there, what makes the difference? Unless their income is in a tax deferred investment vehicle (typically a Roth IRA or some other retirement program), taxes are already paid on the traditional income that goes into the investments in the first place. Dividend income is taxes at the normal taxable income rates and capitol gains is taxes at a fixed rate separated from
It's interesting that you mentioned laws and enforcement. If there was no retribution from the law, I would probably come to your village and show you just how unprepared you actually are and take your shit.
And yes, with my simple knowledge of science, the internal combustion engine, and machine automation, I could build firearms that would turn England's little shotguns into sticks and stones by comparison. But hey, we can turn the streets of England into the old OK Corral if you want to. It's not like the cops would protect you as you don't think your taxes shouldn't go to protect your "house/car/life", if the cut down on welfare.
I agree with you for the most part except for the 2 second rule. This is really a rule that can be complicated as the heavier the vehicle becomes, the more time/distance you need in between. What I'm getting at is that in a compact or subcompact, 2 seconds should probably be more then enough. But when you graduate to a SUV or pickup truck, the weight difference make be enough to make that 2 seconds insufficient space to stop safely and you need to bump it up to 3 seconds or so on dry pavement. This is especially true if you are following a smaller vehicle that can stop faster.
While I like the idea of time spaces in between vehicles because it automatically adjusts the distances based around the speed being traveled, I think a more appropriate rule similar to 2 seconds for anything under 1.5 tons and perhaps an extra second of half second for every 1500-2000 pounds more for a standard 2 axle vehicle. (dealing with 18 wheelers or 6 axle dump trucks and so on would be way more complicated because of increased friction with the road surface)
You are most likely right that a blood test is still better then a breathalyzer test. It's definitely easier to get the results challenged when you know about all the certification steps, procedural differences, handling qualifications, and so on. This is also one reason why you need a qualified lawyer who specializes in DUIs and drug arrests as well as attempting to educate yourself as much as possible if you ever find yourself in a position where a BAC test can have a negative impact on you.
Many states, including Ohio has a provision that allows you to request a Blood test. However, in these same states, the cops aren't always willing to get you one and no court case that I am aware of has ever thrown out their evidence when one wasn't provided.
Also, a blood test is no always accurate for the same reasons that breathalyzer machines might not be. If the person extracting the blood isn't certified or if they don't like you, they can use alcohol based swabs to clean the area the needle will puncture the skin. This creates a residue that will have an impact on the measures BAC. There is also a problem with anticoagulants, some which can't be used with a blood test for BAC but are perfectly capable of being used for other lab work. Then you have the problems of blood separation if no or the wrong type of coagulant is used or the lack of proper handling (for the type of anticoagulant) happens and the alcohol concentration will deviate between whole blood and blood serum levels.
Believe it or not, not all hospitals are certified to extract blood for BAC testing and not all employees are certified to handle it during extraction or after it. You could end up with an employee that is either incompetent for the task or malicious in the application of duties, all of which could cause the results to be just as tainted.
There is no cab service that will pick me up at my house and no cab service in the nearest town that will run after 9 pm on the weekends or 8pm on the weekdays. And if you was here a few years ago, those cabs didn't even exist.
MADD is a bunch of assholes. They attempt to take the legal limit down to a point that is too low, already it's at .08 in most states and they are trying to drop it below that to .02 and .04 which is insane. At least get the legal limits to just below what a normal person would become more of a danger in a car then they already are. When the legal limit was .01, the amount of fatal accidents wasn't any higher for alcohol being the contributing factor when the BAC was at or below it. It's just a bunch of feel good BS now and a bunch of politicians saw a way to try and control the populous while extracting money from them.