I think the issue is a little more nuanced than that. When someone publicly claims adherence to certain principles, as politicians tend to, a distinction is established between changing conclusions (acceptable) and changing foundational beliefs (strongly indicating deception).
Accusations of "flip-flopping" imply the latter kind of change, sometimes disingenuously.
the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments
Unless you believe that attempted (but failed) murder is morally permissible, this study is still relevant to you.
I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life.
Anyone with reservations about Apple or AT&T is free to avoid their products and services (as I do), and encourage others to act likewise.
The same cannot be said of the FCC. You worry about a private deal between Apple and AT&T regarding who can purchase and use Apple products. I worry about people claiming monopoly control over manipulation of electromagnetic radiation (not to mention the content embedded within it and now, apparently, details of contracts involving licensed businesses). Which is more dangerous?
I see your point, and it's true that punishments fall into different classes, but if you think that one cannot be sent to jail for every illegal action, then see what happens if you don't pay a fine.
And rendering all links as unvisited by default (perhaps relegating:visited exclusively to user style sheets) would permanently resolve it. Like the specification suggests.
No purely machine-based voting system is sufficiently trustworthy to be suitable for an election. Any machine can be compromised, by the manufacturer if nobody else. That's a risk that isn't worth taking when the freedom of the country is potentially at stake.
I think that's the real issue here... why should politicians be able to abrogate the freedom of the country? If there was less incentive to rig elections, then fewer elections would be rigged.
Thank you for the response. If I read correctly, then one of Cheek's fundamental claims was that his wages did not constitute income. That is surely contradicted by both the IRC and by point 5 of the footnote. But I think the contradiction is merely hidden instead of resolved. Wouldn't the term "wages", as part of "income", be subject to the same limitations imposed by the Brushaber ruling? If not, then by what rationale? And if so, then we are right back to the IRS either engaging in unlawful activity or, with the (unknowing?) assistance of the courts, mischaracterizing all earnings as wages (and thus by definition "income"). To be honest, I strongly suspect the latter. Most people, judges included, already misread the 16th amendment as if it created the power to levy an unapportioned direct tax, and that line of thinking renders moot the whole investigation.
It seems to me that Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. did nothing to expand the definition of income required by the Brushaber case, or to reinterpret the 16th amendment. Note that the "taxpayers" in context were corporations. The exercise of corporate privilege is certainly taxable, and the nature of the tax is an excise on the corporate activity with the amount measured by income; this is a perfectly legal income tax of precisely the sort required by Brushaber.
The Glenshaw Glass case affirmed that the Internal Revenue Code represented "a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable", which meant that the punitive damages in question were taxable corporate income. The Brushaber case had limited "constitutionally taxable" receipts to those reachable by duties, imposts, and excises, and neither Glenshaw Glass nor (to my knowledge) any other case has changed that. Please enlighten me if you know of one, but my research leads me to near certainty that the IRS is constitutionally prohibited from imposing a direct tax on individuals (the fact that they seem to can only be explained by unlawful activity or paperwork (mis)characterizations of earnings).
In the US, [income] taxes are unconstitutional for any reasonable interpretation of the constitution.
Prior to 1913 you would be correct; however, quoting the 16th amendment to the US Constituition, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Like so much common knowledge, this interpretation of the 16th amendment is wrong. Brushaber v. Union Pacific went before the Supreme Court in 1916, and their ruling concluded that the amendment created no new powers of taxation and instead merely addressed the issues surrounding "income"; all taxes on it were to be classified in the same category as excises. As this forbade them from being direct taxes, it also severely limited the de facto constitutional meaning of "income". Legally, the IRS has no authority to collect a direct tax on the earnings of ordinary workers.
Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!
I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.
May I recommend starting with the IRS.
You may, but it would be stupid to do so:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You know, the Supreme Court did conclude in Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1916) that Amendment XVI created no new powers of taxation and instead merely clarified (ha!) the issues surrounding "income"; all taxes on it were to be classified in the same category as excises. As this forbade them from being direct taxes, it also severely limited the de facto constitutional meaning of "income". Legally, the IRS has no authority to collect a direct tax on the earnings of ordinary workers. Politically, however, you may be right about the stupidity of fighting them.
However, I utterly reject the notion that disallowing by the FCC of visual depictions of nudity or real or simulated acts of sex or violence, constitute an abridgment of the freedom of speech. These things are not speech, are not meant by the First Amendment by speech, and cannot be made so by decree of the Supreme Court.
Even if your premises are accepted, your conclusion is still wrong. The first amendment also prohibits abridging the freedom of the press. Or are you so dense that you believe "the press" describes only machinery squeezing pigments onto dead trees?
They know, don't they, that a representative can have arbitrary text inserted in CR as if it had been read?
Also, if you watch CSPAN while Congress is in session, in the evenings you'll see long stretches with just a few people who are delivering their rants into a nearly empty room. Can that be separated from the rest of the text?
The researchers stated in the paper that the Congressional Record is "subsetted into three major components, one for the Senate and two for the House of Representatives (one of which covers 'extensions', or speeches inserted into the record without being given on the floor)". They used only the Senate data, which their description leads me to believe is unaltered. The latter problem, however, is not addressable by their analysis.
They've stayed out so far. I will fight for them to stay out in the future, regardless of whose interests they are claiming to protect. If you think that any new law will actually benefit you, then you are the one living in a fantasy.
Don't you think someone would spring up and offer "equal access for all" if the current ISPs abandon neutrality?
Not necessarily. I know this is a bit strawman-ish, but look at Big Oil now. They're making record profits when gas prices are as high as ever, and there's not a single "good guy" who's stepping up to the plate. Also, what's to stop big telcos from simply choking bandwith on all servers who use Good Guy ISP?
It is much easier to get into internet service providing than it is to start extracting or refining oil. Also, there is great potential lying in wireless connections and mesh networking, which may eventually bypass ISPs altogether.
ISPs are constantly competing with each other...
Yes, they are now, but remember--their basic goal is to make money. If they believe that they can make more money by colluding to more easily fleece the customer, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd do it.
Which would open up potential for the aforementioned new competitors to undercut them. The possible success of collusion is proportional to a market's barriers of entry.
The alternative is trusting Congress to legislate your best interests. Is that what you want?
YES!!!! I want Congress to pass legislature that is in MY interests, not in the telcos interests! That's the foundation of a representative democracy--the elected body passes laws in the interests of its electorate. Situations like the current one, however, show that this ain't working.
Name the last time Congress passed a law that actually made your life better. Everything they touch, they break... which is why I want them to leave the Internet alone! All the best intentions in the world regarding net neutrality will only lead to a regulatory nightmare, gamed by the friends of politicians to their benefit at your expense with the tacit approval of government.
The Internet has reached the point where it is, essentially, as much of a necessity of modern Western society as the telephone. Therefore, if EVERY telco implements a tiered bandwidth system, there won't be anyone to turn to after they cancel the contract...leaving the consumer high-and-dry without an ISP.
A free market allows for new competition. Don't you think someone would spring up and offer "equal access for all" if the current ISPs abandon neutrality? Hell, Google is pretty close to doing that already!
I wouldn't have any problems with a tiered bandwidth system if I didn't think it would be abused by the telecom corporations. However, the purpose of a business is to make money--no more, no less. I don't think they can be trusted to maintain a free and open communications medium such as the 'Net.
They have so far, and done so in the pursuit of profit. ISPs are constantly competing with each other so you will voluntarily pay for their services. The alternative is trusting Congress to legislate your best interests. Is that what you want?
Many people have complained about the 32 process limit of Windows CE 5. According to Engadget, Windows CE 6 will support more than 32000 processes, which is indeed an increase of several orders of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the issue is a little more nuanced than that. When someone publicly claims adherence to certain principles, as politicians tend to, a distinction is established between changing conclusions (acceptable) and changing foundational beliefs (strongly indicating deception).
Accusations of "flip-flopping" imply the latter kind of change, sometimes disingenuously.
The difference is what divides murder from attempted murder.
Unless you believe that attempted (but failed) murder is morally permissible, this study is still relevant to you.
A law professor named Daniel Solove went so far as to show precisely the flaws with that position two years ago in his wonderful "I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
Read the Bills
Because obviously, that's what copyright is for.
Anyone with reservations about Apple or AT&T is free to avoid their products and services (as I do), and encourage others to act likewise.
The same cannot be said of the FCC. You worry about a private deal between Apple and AT&T regarding who can purchase and use Apple products. I worry about people claiming monopoly control over manipulation of electromagnetic radiation (not to mention the content embedded within it and now, apparently, details of contracts involving licensed businesses). Which is more dangerous?
Be careful of bringing in snakes to deal with your lizard problem.
I see your point, and it's true that punishments fall into different classes, but if you think that one cannot be sent to jail for every illegal action, then see what happens if you don't pay a fine.
All statutes are backed up by guns and cages.
And rendering all links as unvisited by default (perhaps relegating :visited exclusively to user style sheets) would permanently resolve it. Like the specification suggests.
Start pressuring your Congress-critters on it today
Thank you for the response. If I read correctly, then one of Cheek's fundamental claims was that his wages did not constitute income. That is surely contradicted by both the IRC and by point 5 of the footnote. But I think the contradiction is merely hidden instead of resolved. Wouldn't the term "wages", as part of "income", be subject to the same limitations imposed by the Brushaber ruling? If not, then by what rationale? And if so, then we are right back to the IRS either engaging in unlawful activity or, with the (unknowing?) assistance of the courts, mischaracterizing all earnings as wages (and thus by definition "income"). To be honest, I strongly suspect the latter. Most people, judges included, already misread the 16th amendment as if it created the power to levy an unapportioned direct tax, and that line of thinking renders moot the whole investigation.
It seems to me that Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. did nothing to expand the definition of income required by the Brushaber case, or to reinterpret the 16th amendment. Note that the "taxpayers" in context were corporations. The exercise of corporate privilege is certainly taxable, and the nature of the tax is an excise on the corporate activity with the amount measured by income; this is a perfectly legal income tax of precisely the sort required by Brushaber.
The Glenshaw Glass case affirmed that the Internal Revenue Code represented "a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable", which meant that the punitive damages in question were taxable corporate income. The Brushaber case had limited "constitutionally taxable" receipts to those reachable by duties, imposts, and excises, and neither Glenshaw Glass nor (to my knowledge) any other case has changed that. Please enlighten me if you know of one, but my research leads me to near certainty that the IRS is constitutionally prohibited from imposing a direct tax on individuals (the fact that they seem to can only be explained by unlawful activity or paperwork (mis)characterizations of earnings).
Then you don't know the definition of abridge. Here, let me help you: abridge means "lessen, diminish, or curtail".
Even if your premises are accepted, your conclusion is still wrong. The first amendment also prohibits abridging the freedom of the press. Or are you so dense that you believe "the press" describes only machinery squeezing pigments onto dead trees?
They've stayed out so far. I will fight for them to stay out in the future, regardless of whose interests they are claiming to protect. If you think that any new law will actually benefit you, then you are the one living in a fantasy.
It is much easier to get into internet service providing than it is to start extracting or refining oil. Also, there is great potential lying in wireless connections and mesh networking, which may eventually bypass ISPs altogether.
Which would open up potential for the aforementioned new competitors to undercut them. The possible success of collusion is proportional to a market's barriers of entry.
Name the last time Congress passed a law that actually made your life better. Everything they touch, they break... which is why I want them to leave the Internet alone! All the best intentions in the world regarding net neutrality will only lead to a regulatory nightmare, gamed by the friends of politicians to their benefit at your expense with the tacit approval of government.
NO!!! My alternative is to keep Congress and their stupid, misinformed, politically motivated, treacherous laws OUT of the Internet!
A free market allows for new competition. Don't you think someone would spring up and offer "equal access for all" if the current ISPs abandon neutrality? Hell, Google is pretty close to doing that already!
They have so far, and done so in the pursuit of profit. ISPs are constantly competing with each other so you will voluntarily pay for their services. The alternative is trusting Congress to legislate your best interests. Is that what you want?
Many people have complained about the 32 process limit of Windows CE 5. According to Engadget, Windows CE 6 will support more than 32000 processes, which is indeed an increase of several orders of magnitude.
I have high hopes for the offspring of Subaru's B5-TPH (turbo parallel hybrid).
storyboard
It would cost about 1400 rubles.