Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fantasy based laws. (Score 1) 375

by gurps_npc (#48189639) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
The original stats (pre internet) came from the Kinsey Reports (via wikipedia: D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue:, Sexual Deviance, page 391. Guilford Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2. )

New studies suggest that the Kinsey estimates are no longer accurate (if they ever were). There is no clear evidence that the internet caused it, but I am not the first person to suggest it.

Comment: Re:Fantasy based laws. (Score 1) 375

by gurps_npc (#48189569) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
Psychiatrists have found that they can not end any sexuality, but that they can in fact add new perversions, mainly be slowly introducing the desired perversion into sexual fantasies. Some have theorized that while they can't 'cure' gay, they can convert to bisexuality. I am not sure about that, but it is definitely not absurd to shift sexuality from kids to something else

Comment: Food is not the limiting factor (Score 5, Informative) 291

by gurps_npc (#48189249) Attached to: NASA's HI-SEAS Project Results Suggests a Women-Only Mars Crew
The real problems for long distance space travel is not food, air or mass.

Instead it is: Radiation and muscle loss

Long term travel exposes humans large amounts of radiation, in particular from cosmic rays, and from

In addition, living in a low gravity environment destroys your bones.

These two issues are far more problematic than food, air, and water.

Comment: Fantasy based laws. (Score 1) 375

by gurps_npc (#48188689) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK
There are people in this world that think they can legislate away bad things. Pass a law, and boom, it goes away. They tried it with alcohol and marijuana, and look how well that worked out.

That is not how the real world works. Here, there is the law of unintended consequences.

Sometimes the law results in good things - for example, the existence of internet porn has pretty much ended bestiality. Before the internet, farms had an estimated fifty percent bestiality rate. Around 8 % and 3% for the general population. After the internet, all of those numbers dropped like a stone. Why? Because a pretty picture of a girl is more satisfying than bestiality.

Why do I bring this up? Because outlawing behavior doesn't stop it. Some people are and and will be attracted to kids. You can't turn off sexuality (ask any gay man or lesbian woman from an anti-gay tradition). Better that they read manga than buy actual child pornography.

Just as we use a lesser opiate (methadone) to treat addicts, we should use Manga to treat others.

Manga looks to me like a great way to:

1) wean them off child pornography

2) protect real children from being hurt by the industry

3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.

This should be required treatment for people interested in children, rather than outlawed.

Comment: Why do they have a counter? (Score 1) 281

by gurps_npc (#48187467) Attached to: An Algorithm to End the Lines for Ice at Burning Man
Look, if moving the ice to the counter is taking up that much time, don't take the table.

Just sell it from the back of a truck.. Have a guy taking money right there.

The only reason shops usually have a counter is 1) to display MULTIPLE items.

and 2) to discourage grab and run.

They are only selling ice and ice is not easy to grab and run.

Comment: Is the FBI willing to give up their encryption? (Score 1) 281

by gurps_npc (#48163179) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Because if encryption is bad, then they should give it up, right?

Unless, they think they deserve privacy but don't want to give it to other people.

What about reporters investigating corruption among FBI? Will they be allowed encryption? Will the reporter have to admit they are investigating FBI, or will all reporters be allowed encryption?

Comment: Re:Three things you can tax, and consumption is ba (Score 2) 832

by gurps_npc (#48160837) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
This is nothing more than a consumption tax, based only on air. It is a horrible idea. It is designed to tax the poor far more than the wealthy.

It is NOT fair in any way shape or way. It simply refuses to admit the many many benefits that the wealthy get from the government, that the poor don't.

The poor don't care if the government is overthrown and someone confiscates half the wealth. The wealthy do.

The poor don't care if their house burns down (and no one dies), the wealthy do. (at least not to the same extent - they are left as poor as they started).

The poor don't benefit from police as much as the wealthy do. (Think about what happens when they are both arrested for a similar crime, or how much you lose if someone steals from you.)

The poor don't benefit from transportation infrastructure, the wealthy do, they don't travel or ship as much.

The wealthy can call up government officials and get stuff done, the poor can't.

Your idea is ultimate regressive, and you fail to see the problem with it. Worse, arguing with someone like you is irrelevant because you don't care about right and wrong, and your sense of fairness is so radically warped that you have no idea that the far majority of people in the world disagree with it. It's like you said you don't see anything wrong with slavery.

The basic problem is you do NOT understand the very concept of 'fair'. Fair means an equal chance. That means when you get more, you pay more, and the wealthy get SO much more, they have to PAY so much more. It means that children are not penalized for mistakes or stupidity of their parents. No that child gets nothing because his parents had a big family, or just couldn't afford college.

Until you learn the real meaning behind the world 'fair', the rest of the world will laugh at what you think is fair.

Comment: Re:Problem with wealth tax (Score 1) 832

by gurps_npc (#48160711) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
Stock market typically makes 8% a year after inflation. 8%-5% = a profit of 3%.

More importantly, the 5% a year allows for a minimal (couple hundred thousand, or even a million) amount untaxed.

As for renting everything, that drops the price of real estate. Which means that poor people could afford a place - particularly if it was under the minimal untaxed.

And guess what, when real estate prices drop, that means rent drop.

Your understanding of basic economics is flawed. You can't just look one step out, you need to look out multiple steps.

Comment: Re:Three things you can tax, and consumption is ba (Score 1) 832

by gurps_npc (#48160641) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
The 5% number I used actually works even if you exempt the first million dollars of wealth.

As for wealthy avoiding taxes, they do it already. It is fact much HARDER to hide wealth than it is to hide income. Because people can claim that the income never existed merely by spending it, or by hiding the source of it. But it is much harder to evade a tax on wealth because we don't care where it came from, and we can simply insist you show us what happened to the wealth. Oh, you had 2.3 million last year and earned another million this year? That means you now have 3.3 million, show us the receipts to prove that you don't have that much. Oh, it was destroyed? Show us the insurance check. What, you mean you didn't have insurance? Bull. You want us to believe something that stupid, then show us the police report and the MULTIPLE investigations that prove it.

Property taxes are MUCH harder to evade. First of all, most of the wealth in the US is actual real estate. Try claiming that your land vanishes. We just need to put more taxes on things like

As for grating to you, all taxes are grating. The fact that you don't like it is proof it's a good idea.

Comment: Re:Three things you can tax, and consumption is ba (Score 1) 832

by gurps_npc (#48160555) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
Provide evidence please. Because your concept is bad.

Profits taxes the poor MORE than property tax. Because profits include your salary.

The only reason you think property tax affects the poor is because people that pay income tax AND property tax can't afford both. You foolish object to the property tax instead of objecting to the income tax.

Comment: Three things you can tax, and consumption is bad (Score 1) 832

by gurps_npc (#48159957) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
You can tax consumption (tax when purchasing). It discourages purchasing, is by nature regressive (i.e. taxes poor more than wealthy), and will often tax people who government is providing benefits to because they are poor and not perhaps not even working (including the sick, children, and elderly).

You can tax profits (income tax),. It neither discourages nor encourages anything because any tax less than 100% still leaves you ahead when you profit. It is by nature neither progressive nor regressive, and will occasionally tax the working poor, but not the sick, children, or elderly.

Finally, you can tax wealth (property tax). It encourages investment because if the thing you buy is not profitable, then it is costing you money. It is by nature progressive, as poor people don't save anything.

The simplest and best tax is clearly a tax on wealth. It should not be limited to just property, but also include tax on anything worth more than a hundred thousand dollars (luxury cars, jewelry, stocks, annuities, mutual funds, bonds, etc.) A mere 5% tax on said objects would allow us to end the income tax (note, 5% is accurate, because we own so much of this kind of property, far more than the entire yearly income - which would require a flat tax of 20%).

As for the idea that capital should be taxed differently than labor, it is merely propaganda for the wealthy.

Comment: Re:Absolute BS (Score 4, Insightful) 376

by gurps_npc (#48153681) Attached to: Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq
The reason Bush and Cheney did not shout it out was that Republicans made them and sold them to bad guys. All of those weapons, while not reported by the news during the 2nd war, were reported after the first Iraq war.

Bush and Cheney specifically said that they were looking for facilities to make new weapons. Specifically nuclear weapons and biological weapons, with maybe some new chemical weapons. But that was not a big deal, because we knew they had saved some chemical weapons. That was a known thing, and not new.

After the first Iraq war, we destroyed massive stockpiles of chemical weapons but we knew we could not have gotten them all. We had however destroyed the factories.

They specific claims made by Bush and Cheney were for factories capable of making weapons, and the main fear was bio and nuke, not more chemicals.

The factories are the most important thing, and this new information does not indicate that Iraq had kept or created any new factories at all. It is entirely about old stockpiles of chemical, not biological nor nuclear weapons that were never destroyed during the first war. Some of them were used in the second war. Others apparently may have survived to be used by ISIS.

But no one has made a credible claim for new factories that successfully made chemical weapons after the first Iraq war, let alone ever making biological or nuclear weapons

Comment: Re:Laws are not to help you do your job. (Score 1) 404

by gurps_npc (#48150921) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated
I did read the article. Did you read my entire comment? I was saying that yes people ignore the safety lecture, because it is stupid. Ninety five percent of people have already heard it.

More importantly, my point was that the law is not there to make the flight attendants job easier, no matter how worthy they are. Similarly, the law doesn't let cops listen to everyone's phone calls just because it would make their job easier.

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.