I understood that by law, merchants are required to accept legal tender to pay a debt.
1. Not really. The government won't enforce debts unless you accept legal tender. If you don't hand over the goods until payment has been made, you can require any form of payment you like.
2. Cash on pickup is still an allowable option.
I was surprised last week to find out that my neighbour's computer, bought at a major retailer here in Australia, had abiword preinstalled. They are quite happy with it as it meets their needs, they have no idea what open source is. I haven't checked, but I suspect that all who buy there who don't buy MS office are getting abiword.
Here in Australia, history shows that you don't always have to win an armed conflict to achieve your aims: "After 12 months, all but one of the demands of the Ballarat Reform League had been granted."
Perhaps the appropriateness depends on the goal. If an organisation wants to consolidate multiple cases in order to abuse the legal system more efficiently, it is inappropriate. If a judge wants to consolidate cases in order to more efficiently smack down an organisation for legal shenanigans, it is appropriate.
if a sizeable-enough proportion of the population ignored them so effectively that advertising cost more than it gained in sales, so that any advertising at all was a profit-losing proposition.
That's what having sales resistance is. It doesn't have to make all advertising profit-losing, just manipulative advertising. This page attributes this quote to Thomas Jefferson "Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." I don't know the context, but it appears possible that the advertising of the time tended to be factual rather than manipulative.
I find the chances of this slim.
Yes, it requires thinking and effort, but since the alternative is to get the government to protect us, inevitably removing more of our liberty, lets not give up.
Kind of my point. That is, you can set up dual boot from windows, but it's not exactly obvious, and not in the installer AFAIK. Yet this problem doesn't strike you as windows lacking ease of use, but ubuntu.
Anyway, NTLDR is the windows bootloader. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529 You should be able to restore it using the instructions here. You can easily find a tutorial on how to set up dual boot.
Predatory behaviour requires no other encouragement than the availability of prey. It is really not very difficult to develop sufficient sales/marketing resistance to not qualify as prey. If a sufficient proportion of people do this, and teach their children, manipulative sales/marketing techniques will decline accordingly. It has very little to do with political philosophy and structure, much more to do with human skills and behaviour.
...with alcohol it might actually work. (Although in that case it's getting your target to use enough of the product that they think you're attractive enough, but that's enough debate entirely.)
Alternatively, you using enough of the product that you think they're attractive enough! This approach solves some ethical concerns and opens up more possibilities.
Specialization is a tool that our society is built upon, so why do you think that anyone except software engineers will be interested in source code?
I'm not a software engineer or programmer, and I'm interested. Sure, I haven't learned to code, but I can "configure, make, su, make install" or even "rpmbuild -ba *.spec". (Even got a change I made included in a spec file upstream - woohoo, I'm a contributor!)
There are quite a few packages on my system that I've compiled myself for various reasons. I also like that I could, if I want, either learn to program or hire a programmer to modify software to suit my needs. Sure, I'm in a minority, but there is one of me.
I'm not sure on Swiss law as it stands, but is there any information anywhere that the government cannot get a warrant for? This seems to me to be more about the routine handing over of information, which I am certainly against. On the surface it is about tax, which would require regular reporting of everyones information.
One reason I am against income tax though, is because a massive invasion of privacy is required to be able to collect it. Between the tax system and the banking system there is quite a large amount of our personal affairs known to the government without them ever showing probable cause. I suppose it could be considered reasonable - if you are of the opinion that it is the fruits of your labor rightfully belong to the government. That's not my opinion, but I seem to be in a small minority in the world right now.
You don't need $50M in the bank. Make what you think is a reasonable estimate of how long it would take you to find employment again if you needed to. If you can do that within a couple of months, a years income in the bank is more than enough of a safety net. Alternatively, you could look into the possibility of part time contracting you could fit around your full time job. You don't necessarily have to be full time in business to get substantial tax benefits. You could also put your necessary safety net in the bank more easily doing it this way, as several people I know do.
None of this has to do with the fairness or otherwise of tax law, but you don't need to be a millionaire to take advantage of tax benefits, neither do you have to jeopardise your families income to get started.
I don't really think the tax law is because of risk either, it's because investment and business is what provides growth and opportunity. Taxing investment and business higher will probably result in less jobs, and therefore even less money for employees.
I suspect the GP isn't saying that we should have no currency but criticizing "fractional-reserve lending", the process banks use to create money at interest that is not government issued currency.
I think it's offtopic to the issue of privacy and swiss banks, but it is a worthwhile topic to check out. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/hannigan092099.html is a simple story that illustrates the problem well, someone posted it a few days ago.
Privacy need not include how much money you have in the bank, how much money you earn, how much money you inherit, and/or how much money you spend.
Indeed, I now make all that information about myself available to you. Since you mention a free market, my information is for sale. For an undisclosed sum. Paid into my Swiss bank account. Just keep topping it up, when you reach my required amount, I'll send the info.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
The protection of Liberty makes prosecuting criminal activity more difficult. Some of us believe, with good historical evidence I think, that criminal activity is rarely as dangerous to the citizenry as an unchecked government.
1. No income taxes.
2. Socialist politician to the poor: "Lets tax the rich to pay for stuff for you"
3. Poor: Yay! [vote for socialist politician]
4. Rich use lawyers, loopholes, lobbying to avoid tax.
5. Poor pay most of the tax - karma.
6. ??????
7. Profit.
Hint: it's something about voting for people who will reduce taxes, and accepting that this means reduction in government services. You are paying for those things anyway, but usually at inflated prices when the government spends your money for you.
My use of the term "rights" was a direct reply to your post in which you quoted the constitution. It is obvious from the context of my post that the rights I was talking about were those directly mentioned in the constitution and quoted by you. For my use of the term "rights" to be glib, your post and the constitution would also have to be glib.
... The Founding Fathers maybe should have considered this.
From what I've seen so far, the founding fathers put a lot more and better consideration into their words than you have. Write some documents that introduce the most radical political system the world has ever seen, then get back to me.
So what does this statement actually imply? (1) A public service function, or (2) to make someone fantastically wealthy by a specially devised monopoly method?
Neither. It doesn't imply what you may wish to do with your rights, it explicitly secures "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". What you do with that right is your decision, serving the public good and wealth accumulation are equally compatible with it. They do not require reinterpretation of the constitution or law. People with some form or degree of wealth have sometimes chosen to use it for public good.
The translation you reference still says they "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so", which is to say that they judged the Apostles teaching according to their own understanding of scripture. Since this is stated as part of a commendation to them, without caveat, it is absurd to claim that this is not a part of the commended behaviour. There is nothing in the verse that grammatically requires that people are not to understand the scripture themselves, although common sense would dictate that if scripture is from God, then only God's intended meaning is valid.
Besides, I haven't suggested a sort (or method) of interpretation, but an entirely different concept of how truth is to be understood. Rather than discuss it here I will send you an email so that if you wish to explore this further we can do so privately.
However, I will say that allowing another, by position of authority, to dictate correct interpretation of scripture is to allow another to dictate the contents of one's mind. As such, it is fundamentally a rejection of the call of Christ. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;" and the promise of Christ http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." Not, "the priest hears my voice, and he'll let the sheep know what I've said".
Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so.
That verse could well be read as pertaining to the origin of scripture not being of private interpretation, rather than the reading. Then the understanding would be compatible with Acts 17:11, where the Beroeans are commended as "more noble" that the Thessalonicans for assessing St. Paul's teaching according to the scripture.
If even an apostle does not have such authority that his teaching ought not to be scrutinized by the hearers, then what possible position is there in the church that is elevated above such scrutiny? Or who was there, among the Beroeans, that as yet did not know the Gospel, but was a higher authority on it than St. Paul?
I suggest to you that if the scriptures are true, then:
1. Only the meaning God intends for the scriptures is the correct understanding.
2. Individual accountability to God requires individual understanding.
3. As Christ refered to himself as being the truth it would be theoretically possible, by knowing him, to know the truth even if one had a lack of understanding of scripture.
Slashdot Mirror
Neurotics build castles in the air,
Psychotics live in them,
Psychologists collect the rent.
2. Cash on pickup is still an allowable option.
I was surprised last week to find out that my neighbour's computer, bought at a major retailer here in Australia, had abiword preinstalled. They are quite happy with it as it meets their needs, they have no idea what open source is. I haven't checked, but I suspect that all who buy there who don't buy MS office are getting abiword.
Here in Australia, history shows that you don't always have to win an armed conflict to achieve your aims: "After 12 months, all but one of the demands of the Ballarat Reform League had been granted."
Perhaps the appropriateness depends on the goal. If an organisation wants to consolidate multiple cases in order to abuse the legal system more efficiently, it is inappropriate. If a judge wants to consolidate cases in order to more efficiently smack down an organisation for legal shenanigans, it is appropriate.
Anyway, NTLDR is the windows bootloader. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529 You should be able to restore it using the instructions here. You can easily find a tutorial on how to set up dual boot.
Predatory behaviour requires no other encouragement than the availability of prey. It is really not very difficult to develop sufficient sales/marketing resistance to not qualify as prey. If a sufficient proportion of people do this, and teach their children, manipulative sales/marketing techniques will decline accordingly. It has very little to do with political philosophy and structure, much more to do with human skills and behaviour.
Is different. No windows. For a comparison, use an windows installer on a ubuntu machine and set up dual boot. Is it even possible?
If it doesn't set up automatically though, grub config for any bootable partition:
rootnoverify ([refer to partition here])
chainloader +1
...with alcohol it might actually work. (Although in that case it's getting your target to use enough of the product that they think you're attractive enough, but that's enough debate entirely.)
Alternatively, you using enough of the product that you think they're attractive enough! This approach solves some ethical concerns and opens up more possibilities.
I have spent many long nights trying to tell grub how to boot both Linux and Windows
I have spent several seconds telling grub to boot Fedora, CentOS and Ubuntu.
A "media officer" and a blogger are hardly "Silicon Valley's top talent".
Marketing and PR are the core business for MS. Well engineered products can be bought, the PR machine must be internal.
Specialization is a tool that our society is built upon, so why do you think that anyone except software engineers will be interested in source code?
I'm not a software engineer or programmer, and I'm interested. Sure, I haven't learned to code, but I can "configure, make, su, make install" or even "rpmbuild -ba *.spec". (Even got a change I made included in a spec file upstream - woohoo, I'm a contributor!)
There are quite a few packages on my system that I've compiled myself for various reasons. I also like that I could, if I want, either learn to program or hire a programmer to modify software to suit my needs. Sure, I'm in a minority, but there is one of me.
I'm not sure on Swiss law as it stands, but is there any information anywhere that the government cannot get a warrant for? This seems to me to be more about the routine handing over of information, which I am certainly against. On the surface it is about tax, which would require regular reporting of everyones information.
One reason I am against income tax though, is because a massive invasion of privacy is required to be able to collect it. Between the tax system and the banking system there is quite a large amount of our personal affairs known to the government without them ever showing probable cause. I suppose it could be considered reasonable - if you are of the opinion that it is the fruits of your labor rightfully belong to the government. That's not my opinion, but I seem to be in a small minority in the world right now.
You don't need $50M in the bank. Make what you think is a reasonable estimate of how long it would take you to find employment again if you needed to. If you can do that within a couple of months, a years income in the bank is more than enough of a safety net. Alternatively, you could look into the possibility of part time contracting you could fit around your full time job. You don't necessarily have to be full time in business to get substantial tax benefits. You could also put your necessary safety net in the bank more easily doing it this way, as several people I know do.
None of this has to do with the fairness or otherwise of tax law, but you don't need to be a millionaire to take advantage of tax benefits, neither do you have to jeopardise your families income to get started.
I don't really think the tax law is because of risk either, it's because investment and business is what provides growth and opportunity. Taxing investment and business higher will probably result in less jobs, and therefore even less money for employees.
I suspect the GP isn't saying that we should have no currency but criticizing "fractional-reserve lending", the process banks use to create money at interest that is not government issued currency.
I think it's offtopic to the issue of privacy and swiss banks, but it is a worthwhile topic to check out. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/hannigan092099.html is a simple story that illustrates the problem well, someone posted it a few days ago.
Is there a problem allowing the tax department to look at banking records so that they can actually effectively collect taxes?
Yes.
Why should wealthy companies and individuals be able to get away with avoiding taxes?
For the same reasons that poor individuals should be able to get away with avoiding taxes.
Privacy need not include how much money you have in the bank, how much money you earn, how much money you inherit, and/or how much money you spend.
Indeed, I now make all that information about myself available to you. Since you mention a free market, my information is for sale. For an undisclosed sum. Paid into my Swiss bank account. Just keep topping it up, when you reach my required amount, I'll send the info.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The protection of Liberty makes prosecuting criminal activity more difficult. Some of us believe, with good historical evidence I think, that criminal activity is rarely as dangerous to the citizenry as an unchecked government.
1. No income taxes.
2. Socialist politician to the poor: "Lets tax the rich to pay for stuff for you"
3. Poor: Yay! [vote for socialist politician]
4. Rich use lawyers, loopholes, lobbying to avoid tax.
5. Poor pay most of the tax - karma.
6. ??????
7. Profit.
Hint: it's something about voting for people who will reduce taxes, and accepting that this means reduction in government services. You are paying for those things anyway, but usually at inflated prices when the government spends your money for you.
This is a glib use of the term "rights"?
... The Founding Fathers maybe should have considered this.
My use of the term "rights" was a direct reply to your post in which you quoted the constitution. It is obvious from the context of my post that the rights I was talking about were those directly mentioned in the constitution and quoted by you. For my use of the term "rights" to be glib, your post and the constitution would also have to be glib.
From what I've seen so far, the founding fathers put a lot more and better consideration into their words than you have. Write some documents that introduce the most radical political system the world has ever seen, then get back to me.
So what does this statement actually imply? (1) A public service function, or (2) to make someone fantastically wealthy by a specially devised monopoly method?
Neither. It doesn't imply what you may wish to do with your rights, it explicitly secures "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". What you do with that right is your decision, serving the public good and wealth accumulation are equally compatible with it. They do not require reinterpretation of the constitution or law. People with some form or degree of wealth have sometimes chosen to use it for public good.
The translation you reference still says they "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so", which is to say that they judged the Apostles teaching according to their own understanding of scripture. Since this is stated as part of a commendation to them, without caveat, it is absurd to claim that this is not a part of the commended behaviour. There is nothing in the verse that grammatically requires that people are not to understand the scripture themselves, although common sense would dictate that if scripture is from God, then only God's intended meaning is valid.
Besides, I haven't suggested a sort (or method) of interpretation, but an entirely different concept of how truth is to be understood. Rather than discuss it here I will send you an email so that if you wish to explore this further we can do so privately.
However, I will say that allowing another, by position of authority, to dictate correct interpretation of scripture is to allow another to dictate the contents of one's mind. As such, it is fundamentally a rejection of the call of Christ. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;" and the promise of Christ http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." Not, "the priest hears my voice, and he'll let the sheep know what I've said".
If even an apostle does not have such authority that his teaching ought not to be scrutinized by the hearers, then what possible position is there in the church that is elevated above such scrutiny? Or who was there, among the Beroeans, that as yet did not know the Gospel, but was a higher authority on it than St. Paul?
I suggest to you that if the scriptures are true, then:
1. Only the meaning God intends for the scriptures is the correct understanding.
2. Individual accountability to God requires individual understanding.
3. As Christ refered to himself as being the truth it would be theoretically possible, by knowing him, to know the truth even if one had a lack of understanding of scripture.