The vast majority of people experienced famine and/or pestilence at some point before the beginning of the last century, generally several times during their life.

And yet the vast majority survived. I never said there wasn't hardships, I said they got by.

The rest of what you say exists only in your mind. Discounting suicides, life expectancy increased during the great depression.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full

BTW, the great depression was largely caused by government interference within the free market (price controls and trade wars with Europe). I know that someone you find authoritative like your grandma might have told you different, but pick up a history book and get your information from a real source.

Looks like someone didn't understand something...

I don't care what most people do. I was explicit in talking about how this "service" would interact with what I do.

Until it lands on top of one of the two channels I'm using and then there will be a conflict. A conflict I won't be able to prevent them from creating and will have to spend my time solving. And then solve again the next time it happens. And then when my neighbor gets his Comcast "free" wifi box and either one of his lands on top of mine.

At that point I go to HSMM and don't care about the low power interference.

Actually, the right is:

No. If you are on trial, or suspected of a crime, you cannot be compelled to answer any questions about anything. You can't even be compelled to get on the witness stand. The only time you can be compelled to answer questions is if the police believe you have information about a crime somebody else committed in which you are not implicated. For example, if I witnessed my best friend commit a crime, the state could subpoena my testimony against him, even though I don't want to implicate him. But if I am accused of being his accomplice, I don't have to say anything about anything.

Of course, more than usual, this is not legal advice and you should not rely on it. Get a lawyer.

I understand that it is fun and convenient to ignore some of the words when you want to make a good rant, but you should please note that I was explicit in saying what the purpose of the photos I did not find invasive was. You might as well come up with some fanciful use like editing random people's heads onto other people's bodies in sex tapes as another use for DMV photos and then rant at me about how I said that such a use wouldn't be invasive or unacceptable. You'd be just as accurate and just as honest.

I was pretty explicit in saying that I did not find invasive the ability of police to verify an identity using stored DMV photos. The person to whom I replied, which wasn't you, claimed that such use was outside the scope of the original photo, and I responded to that specific claim.

Right. Now you're trying the decrepit "if only you was as smart as me you'd know I was right" argument. This is your idea of trying to have "a dialogue"?

Yes, my response to you was a complete waste of time. You neither care that you misread what was said nor that you were being much more invasive in your questioning than any DMV photo would be, and yet I should object to one and freely participate in the other. The fact that you asked is the problem, my having a choice or not.

You think that keeping the DMV photo online so the actual identity of someone can be verified is invasive, I do not. I think the ability of law enforcement to double check an identity using information that is relatively hard to forge is well worth the non-invasive nature of the process.

I find your attempted interrogation as to political/etc affiliations to be much more invasive than simply having my driver's license photo in the DMV database. I'm supposed to object to the latter but go along happily with the former?

That's the problem. It very well may be using the channel I'm already using. (Actually, two that I'm already using when I turn on my second AP.) Since I can't control which one it uses, it may very well bounce around as Comcast sees fit to bounce their digital channels around. What's to stop it from landing smack on top of the wireless channel(s) I'm already using?

I'm not sure I would want any enticement for people to stand around outside my house browsing the web. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?

Because even with the manipulation, the top 1% of the people pay significantly more in taxes than they have in income. If they were able to game the system so well, they'd be paying much less in income taxes than they are. In case you missed it, Schedule A (deductions) comes after the calculation of AGI, so a skillful manipulator of itemized deductions would have a high AGI and a low tax. That doesn't happen.

In your opinion. Since the money that is deducted is no longer income, I'd say it would be unfair to use that as a comparison. If you made $20,000 in total income and donated $10,000 to charity, would it be fair to tax you on the entire $20,000? Of course not. But you say it would be. Now add in that you paid $2000 in mortgage interest, and had unreimbursed business expenses of another $1000. The amount you'd be taxed on is now just $7000. You want it to be the full $20,000 to be fair, right? You want to be fair, right?

Flat tax as proposed is not a solution to anything but the whining of the class haters. I've calculated what I would owe under current laws and the "fair" flat tax and I'd owe double. Now, you may think I'm one of the 1%, but I'm far from it. Your "fair" flat tax would kill the middle class. Is that your target? You hate them, too?

Yes, showing the facts is a good way of showing oneself to be correct in stating the facts. Where are your numbers? Where is YOUR source? You have nothing to back you up but bluster and insult. And, by the way, I've shown two sources of different information, with multiple charts per source. You haven't bothered to look, have you? You don't know what they show.

Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.

And the only numbers that have been presented here show that those people pay far more in percentage of tax than they make in income and you have nothing to show otherwise. You have nothing to show your 8-10% claim, and you have nothing to show your 30-40% claim for the rest of us. You've got some alleged failure to claim income on the part of the awful rich people, but nothing to prove it.

And here, I'll point this out to you -- poor people have just as much to gain from underreporting their income as rich people do. In fact, more. If they can get below certain AGI levels, they can get tax credits. Free money. The rich just pay a bit less in tax. But I'm not trying to claim how many people do this because I have no numbers to back this up. You, OTOH, keep spouting unsupported claims without any source at all.

I guess you'll just have to remain unhappy that other people make more money than you do.

How else can you verify that the license was issued to the person holding it without keeping the picture of that person on file? It is relatively easy to forge a license with any picture you want, it is relatively hard to get your forged picture into the database.

You say it is ok to have the picture to verify that the license "is yours", but that involves more than just matching the picture on the license to the person holding it. Having a picture on the license match doesn't mean the name and address and driving qualifications listed on that license are yours.

Not that likely. SCO only has two counts left, and their big claim---that they own UNIX and everything that ever looked like UNIX---is already taken care of by the Novell judgment. I think what they have left is claims for business torts, like tortious interference with contracts or something along those lines. This looks to me like the judge is opening the case back up just to take inventory: is there anything left here to fight about? If the answer is no, he will promptly toss SCO out on its ear and the whole thing will be well and truly dead.

It's part of the socialist system. You're describing how that system should deal with the difference in desirability of housing. Behind that all is the issue of being paid to work.

Sorry, that's not the concept behind the system. "To those according to their need" is the second part of the equity equation.

That's right, and that's the failure of the system. They aren't going to work their asses off when they don't have to.

We all own everything together. That includes your house and your food. Guess who's coming to dinner?

GT6 is on PS3. You'll have to wait for GT7 to see how the PS4 performs. Of course, it'll be still be interesting to see which actual performs the driving aspect better.

Well, except for the fact that they've stated that they will release an unlock if at all possible if the company ever goes out of business. And the fact that Steam DRM is ridiculously easy to crack and they have not made any real effort to improve it except from the multiplayer security aspect. Which is almost certainly because they both know that stopping pirates is ineffectual and it will allow people to continue playing games if anything catastrophic happens to Valve.

Nobody uses multcast because it won't handle on demand viewing,

There are a whole series of algorithms to use multicast IP to deliver VoD, for example pyramid broadcasting.

No one uses multicast on the Internet because in general there is no carriage of multicast over the Internet (mainly due to security and stability concerns). But multicast IP is used for VoD within closed networks, such as inside a hotel.

What on Earth are you talking about? Education in America has been handled by the (local) government going all the way back to the settlement of the new colonies.

Obviously, I forgot to spell it out.. federal and state government as in the government. Local governments dabbled in public education but it wasn't consistent or always available in every city.

Also, America is exceptional in that it always had high literacy rates, but in other countries, literacy has increased directly proportionally to the amount of involvement by the government, and higher standard of living is directly co-related to the participation of government with the "big-state" countries of Europe such as Germany and Scandinavian countries consistently outperforming the "small state" countries such as the US (yes, by developed world standards the US is a low taxes, small government country).

I'm not sure how higher standard of living is connected with adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population. I'm sure with a base line, the rest will follow but you have missed the entire point.