I'm pretty sure they send you a letter first. Maybe two.

Well it depends on how much money you make. I had some college drop-out friends simply skip taxes a couple years. Nothing really happened, I mean, the IRS has a lot more important things to do than pay a professional to harass a kid over a few hundred bucks. Eventually he got back on track, paid some fines, and got on with his business.

Now, if you are your typical libertarian who has daddy's money and business opportunities lining his pockets, then yeah, the IRS will care. They'll send some letters, and some more, and all your friends and associates will call you crazy and stupid, and eventually someone will show up with cuffs.

But "the threat of force" is a hyperbole. It makes you sound like a fool. It's ludicrous. I mean, when you pay the ice-cream man his $1.50 for a cone, are you doing it under "the threat of force"? No, you can simply choose not to buy. Likewise, you can simply opt out of this economic system that the government fosters and go be some sort of hermit in the woods. Find someplace secluded and no one will care. (Or Somalia). If you have no income, the IRS won't give a shit. If you DO make a buck by doing business under the protection of the military, over pubicly funded roads, with government cash, etc. etc. then the majority of us have agreed that it's only fair if you pay some taxes. Deal with it.

No, of course not. I'm not a big fan of waste. But you're deluding yourself if you think the corporate world is any better. The larger the organization, the larger the waste, and also the more power and control it has.

But anyway, let's look at the topic on hand: Canada is turning a blind eye to science. It's axing a lot of it's environmental protection. Why do you think that employing scientists to be watchdogs on business activities is not the most cost effective way to do things? There are a LOT of resources out there that depend on an ecosystem that can be disrupted in a myriad of ways. And businesses have a LONG history of screwing it up. Some times they even know they're doing it and just don't care. If they say fuck science let the business suits do what they want, and say, all the fish die or something, how would you price that destruction of resources? How would you prevent such activity from happening? History shows you can't trust businesses to put the welfare of the people ahead of their quarterly profits.

YEAH, it's not like we'd have a series of irregular roads that are speed traps at every damned podunk town with god-knows what on the road around every bend if we didn't have the Interstate system!

What about when the science is that something the corporation is doing is disrupting the ecosystem?

Which business will reward that scientist?

Do you think the corporation really cares about that sort of externality? Hell, the fish farmers might even enjoy that disruption as it kills off their competition.

What about the guy at the (US) EPA that finds out that new chemical X is 5 times as mutagenic as old chemical Y, which would justify a reduction of the allowed parts per million that chemical plants are allowed to seep into the water? That guy is keeping babies from being deformed.

Whose bottom line is he working towards? Who should foot the bill for his wages?
(The answer is EVERYONE'S, so the taxpayers are a good choice.)

Oh boy, you're one of those types that think taxes are equivalent to jackboot thugs raping your daughter. This is going to go all sorts of fun places.

But no, it IS a war on science. The Canadian government has a lot of ways they can decide what to do. They can get a public vote, they can go with their gut, or they can ask an expert. You know, like a scientist. If they decide to get rid of that portion of their organization it's like they're waging war on that fundamental. If they, somehow, worked towards ignoring everything the populace wanted them to do, we'd say they were waging a war on democracy.
It's like if a programming firm decided to axe their QA department, you could say they "waged a war on testing".

How can you sit there and hyperbole like this and claim it's not a war on science? Are you the chosen one who is solely allowed to exaggerate?
Listen, there's this form, you have to fill it out. Do your civic duty otherwise there is a fine. Yeah, yeah, paperwork is a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. And it's not jackboot Nazi thugs breaking down your door.

When the science is screaming that the boss is screwing over generation of fishers just to get a couple of tax dollars, and it's your job to go do that science, you'd become an advocate too.

Scientists don't like to point that out because they have souls. You're literally suggesting we should let people die from health complications when they're young. Because it's expensive to take care of them in old age. Whoa dude. Whoa.

This is actually kind of an issue. The "hard truths" have a hard time getting publication and circulation because people, well, don't want to be evil. But since we're talking about policy here, I'm actually ok with the darker facts of life not being implemented. I mean, the euthanasia/eugenics/forced-sterilization crowd don't need much encouragement before they go all crazy. They're kinda already there.

As opposed to being on the corporate payroll?
Or do you have unyielding faith in the scientists of academia?
Good science ain't cheap, and someone has to pay. Or you can live in ignorance (which is often more expensive).

There is a war on science and we're going to fight you.

Yeah, there's this nice video, RSA Animate:Drive, about what actually motivates knowledge workers. I find it insightful and it helped me focus on being a better happier developer rather than chasing a bigger paycheck.

I'd be all over a bowl of fresh fruit. But maintaining something like that has to fall to someone. And that's like, half-an-hour a day of actual work by an actual employee to go buy things, bring them back, and set them out that they actually have to pay for rather than dumping $500 on a crate of high-preservative junk food once a year.

No, I'm going to accuse you of bias because you can't actually find anything wrong with, say, the entry on the great depression. If you could show how the Wikipedia entry is simply wrong, leans towards a bias viewpoint, and provide supporting evidence showing that you're not just talking out of your ass, then you would have shown me. You would make me believe what you say, and I would do what I could to try and fix the entry, and push the Wikipedia crowd to get their shit in order. And I'd stop claiming that Wikipedia is the best thing that our generation has done. IF.

I mean, what about theKeynesian section? People bitch and moan about how the idea is completely messed up, while others think they have solid proof that it works. It's controversial. It has been peppered with propaganda from both sides that really hate each other and desperately want the history books to show their views on the subject. And yet, the article simply states what the man believed, and doesn't state whether or not it turned out to be true.

It's not because I believe the "propaganda" version, it's that you are giving no reason to believe anything else. If you can't cite some sources, you're a god-damned troll for spewing FUD.

That's nice, but he bought the textbook. He owned it. Those rights belong to him now. And he didn't want to "deny use" to anyone of what he owned.

Unless you throw in some crazy system of "leasing" or believe that when you buy a book, you can't read it aloud to anyone else. Say, over the radio. To people transcribing it. And systems like that HAVE been made "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". They've worked out well in some cases, and horribly bad in other cases.

Post some examples of Wikipedia "getting it wrong" or GTFO.

Link the article and explain how it's wrong. Since you claim it's for ANY event after 1899, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Go ahead, we'll wait.

What?
How does Google have ANYTHING to do with this story, parent post, or subject matter?
Yes, Google is indeed rich enough to purchase some textbooks. How insightful, thank you for contributing to the conversation. And OH LOOK, someone with mod points agrees with you.

Now... the point of contention I have with this statement is that somehow, by having money, Google is evil. ... Could you explain that a bit for me? Are we supposed to feel bad about the paychecks we bring home? Should be look at our nest eggs and savings and cackle like some evil mastermind knowing that we screwed someone over to acquire it?

It's posts like this, and they've been going on for a FUCKING DECADE, that make me feel like the majority of the hate, suspicion, and fear of Google is only so much jealousy. Now, don't get me wrong, if Google decided to turn Sith and... I dunno, blackmailing everyone with secrets gleamed from their free email service, then yeah that would be horrible. And they certainly have the potential to be evil. A lot of it. Almost (but not quite) the potential that Microsoft has, to pull out a comparable example. Quicker strike capabilities I guess. But by and far Google hasn't been even remotely as evil as Microsoft.

So really, if you hate "the Google" so much, you need to start coming up with more rational rants because otherwise you just kind of look like a fool and make the rational people trust Google even more.

(Also, it's "don't be evil", you're getting confused with the Japanese three-monkey thing).

Techerz, leef dem keeds awoon.

No, evolution is still a cold-hearted bitch even when it's virtual bots trying to gain fitness points in a genetic algorithm to find the best way to trade stock. The entire point of the prisoner's dilema is that the optimal/rational route, the one that evolution takes, is to betray the other guy and grab what you can. The personification of nature and evolution both follow the same characteristics. The later certainly guided the former. If nature is a bitch, then evolution is the motherfucker that made it that way.

Hey, that'd be great. If someone comes along and takes my paintings after he runs that through Google, the cops should know exactly where to go look.

"People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
-Eric Schmidt

A not-too-subtle hint that if you google how to steal things, and then things get stolen around you, Mr. Google snitched on you. Because he's bound by law to do so.

You can even take that recording, crop it to a couple of still shots of people's faces and search the internet for images close to it to see if you can identify who they are.

And I'm proud to report that my congressman, David Loebsack (D-IA) who is part of the privacy caucus, isn't one of the eight idiots going on a pointless smear campaign against Google. I guess this isn't blatent bullshit like the "scroogle" campaign, but it's pretty close. I mean, they point out that A BAR has preemptively banned Google glass. With a citation. Like it matters.

And #3: It has facial recognition. Of some sort. And it could be used "to unveil personal information about whomever... Could a human subject opt out of this collection of personal data?"

Come on, the question they meant to ask is how glass matches facial recognition to personal information, if Google keeps a database of everyone's face, and could people opt out of said database. But no, they don't have a fucking clue when it comes to technology. All they see is point-click-info and they lose their fucking minds.

YAY privacy, but HOLY FUCKING COW are these people making privacy advocates look like idiots being paid by microsoft.