Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:24 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil
1/23    Really, people...
        Is it incompetence or embezzlement?
2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:41492 Activity:kinda low
        Canadian Conservatives win. Lower taxes and Bushism to reign
        in N America forever!
        \_ You know, I don't even feel too bad about this.  The Conservatives
           are probably just as corrupt as the Liberals, but at least if they
           lower taxes they'll have less money to embezzle.  The idea of closer
           ties with the US scares me, but it's not like Martin was doing a
           great job of keeping his distance either.
           \_ Or they can slash taxes, run up a huge debt and leave it to
              later generations to pay and/or default.  Note that Canada is
              actually paying down their national debt right now.
              \_ Well, not all "conservatives" are as stupid as ours.
        \_ Except being a parlimentary system they only have something like
           32-38 percent of the seats and 52 percent of the seats are in
           the hands of what, in the us, would be leftist pinkos.
        \_ We kicked out Davis for Ah-nold.  Yes, we are all closet gropers,
           aren't we?
2006/1/24 [Computer/Domains, Reference/RealEstate] UID:41493 Activity:high
1/24    Fight eminent domain?  Seize a judge's house  -John
        \_ Yeah, threatening judges with retribution based on their decisions,
           no matter what form it takes, seems like an excellent long term
           plan to guarantee the impartiality of the judiciary.
2006/1/24-25 [Consumer/TV, Recreation/Media] UID:41494 Activity:nil
1/24    have you thought you watched all episodes of STNG and discovered
        that you missed an episode or two many years later?
        \_ Nope.
        \_ Yeah. I missed one s2 eps when it aired on TV and only
           discovered it again on DVD. -stmg
2006/1/24-25 [Uncategorized] UID:41495 Activity:moderate
1/24    I masturbated 9 times yesterday, and 3 times this morning.
        I think it's a new personal record.
        \_ What do you masturbate to?
           \_ This?
              \_ I can't believe that would get you 9 "throws".
                 \_ Any better recommendations?
        \_ Do you mean you actually finished off with cum every time?  That'd
           be a record.
           \_ I sure did.  Is this the world's lamest superpower?
              \_ You're Mr. Furious... masturbater.
        \_ In College there was a guy we called Dave 22 because he claimed to
           have masturbated 22 times in one day.
        \_ That can be a good aerobic workout!
        \_ When you masturbate more than chicks can, something's wrong.
           \_ URL?  ;-)
        \_ I'm surprised that (1) this thread generated so many responses, and
           (2) hasn't been deleted yet.
           \_ You need free hands to delete this thread, and everybody's hands
              are now too busy doing ...... you know.
2006/1/24-25 [Science] UID:41496 Activity:nil
1/24    To the person looking for a quiz generator earlier:
2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41497 Activity:moderate
1/24    Pictures from SF "Walk for Life" (pro-life march)
        \_ Check out its Anatomy of a Photograph page about how the media is
           \_ Replace your well-composed photograph with my crappy one now!
        \_ "The page is not meant to be an argument for one side or the other,
            nor does it analyze the merits of either position. It is simply
            an essay about what happened that day, and what people did."
           Ridiculous. It's a photo-essay presented to support the photo-
           grapher's viewpoint. That's fine, but pretending to be unbiased
           is not.
           \_ Any media which doesn't support my viewpoint is biased!
           \_ I think that statement is pretty much correct.  The photo
              essay does not make any points pro or anti-abortion.  It
              just comments on the behavior of the two factions.  The
              commentary on that may be biased, s/he does seem to think
              that many of the pro-choice crowd are jerks, but s/he never
              makes any arguments about the issue of abortion.
              \_ Sorry, I thought the people at the rally were the issues
                 being discussed. And on that, s/he's biased.
                 \_ Isn't that what the web site said?  "It is simply an
                    essay about what happened that day, and what people
                    \_ And the photos and comments he featured portray certain
                       groups of people as competent and others as liars.
                       It's fish in a barrel to take unwholesome pictures of
                       Pro-Choicers disrupting a rally like this.
        \_ This is the same guy who claims that the entire city of San
           Francisco is pro-terrorist because he saw some grafitti on the
           sidewalk that he didn't like. The guy is a moron.
           \_ So is every journalist I've ever met.  So what?
                 "Turns out I was right -- San Franciscans don't think
                  Americans are the equivalent of the terrorists. They think
                  Americans are worse than the terrorists."
                  Go ahead and read that kind of hateful trash if you want,
                  but I have better things to do with my time.
        \_ I think instead of giving us "a variety of fresh perspectives",
           the huge array of "reporting" we now have just lets everyone these
           days live in an echo chamber where their beliefs are never
           challenged by inconvenient facts.  (emphasis on "inconvenient",
           not "facts")
           \_ You mean like motd?
              \_ The motd is not an echo chamber.  People agree, people
                 disagree.  People post things that other people violently
                 disagree with.
                 \_ People are also apparently violent masturbators.  See
2006/1/24-25 [Consumer/Audio] UID:41498 Activity:low
1/24    Recommendations on high quality medium price-range skype
        \_ I have a Plantronics full ear coverage one with a boom mike,
           which is also good for gaming.  -John
        \_ don't bother.  Skype sounds terrible regardless.  I just use
           a regular stereo headphone + $1.99 made-in-China mic and it
           works fine :p
        \_ high quality skype is an oxymoron.
           \_ I've been using it a lot since moving to Chile, both for
              pc-pc and skypeout calls.  It's not "high quality" but I
              can hear and be heard just fine.  And a good mic/speakers
              make a difference.  -John
2006/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41499 Activity:high
1/24    L.A. Times columnist does not support the troops
        \_ Why post the freeper link?  The real article is way funnier.
           (And not in the ways he intended)
        \_ What exactly is wrong with his position?  At least it's rational.
           The idea that people who pull triggers are somehow not morally
           culpable is not just stupid, but dangerous.
           \_ yeah, there are a surprising number of genuine "at least he's
              honest" freeper posts ... but there was also one:
              "Hey- at least he's honest. Now get the rope."
           \_ As a person who didn't support the war but who does support the
              troops, my big problem with his position is that it proposes
              a binary viewpoint: you're either against the war because you're
              a pacifist, or you're not against the war. Baloney. I believe
              that a disciplined and actively used military force is necessary
              not only to our own national defense but also to the deterrence
              of tyranny and genocide. I just don't think Iraq was an
              appropriate target, and I think the administration made an
              utter cock-up out of something that could have been done much
              more smoothly. I think we need to withdraw our troops, not
              because I think it will make everything better, but because I
              think that's the only way we can salvage any real regard for
              our military might.
              \_ Indeed.  You don't blame the hammer when you smash your thumb.
              \_ I don't see that it proposes that binary viewpoint. It
                 proposes that the guys pulling triggers are in some way
                 morally responsible. I suppose the author is neglecting
                 those who don't see it as immoral, but simply unwise.
        \_ "So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American
           imperialism ..."
           ^American imperialism^whoever is President at the time
2006/1/24-25 [Uncategorized] UID:41500 Activity:nil
1/24    I <3 Santorum
2006/1/24-25 [Computer/Domains] UID:41501 Activity:high
1/24    What is the best place to park your domain name?
        \_ If you're planning on using it at some later date,
           If you're planning on waiting to see who buys it for the most,
           up your ass.  -John
           \_ Unless you own your domain isn't worth anything.
              \_ Which doesn't prevent a lot of greedy morons from
                 thinking theirs is.  -John
                 \_ I just sold a domain for $5k.
                    \_ Which domain?
2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low
1/24    If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man,
        will the crime boss be held liable?
        \_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced
           all his killings.
        \_ Of course.  Criminal conspiracy.
        \_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some
           reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love".
        \_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his
           son's gf because she knew about his robbery?
           \_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held...
                \_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people"
              \_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured
                 in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does
                 not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any
                 const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv-
                 ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable).
                 But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then
                 the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of
                 US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend.
2006/1/24-25 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41503 Activity:low
1/24    Slideshow comparing Nazi political cartoons
        vs. conservative Cox & Forkum political cartoons
        \_ Got tired of waiting for the comic to load.
        \_ Gee, 2 cartoonists, both from western cultural heritage,
           occasionaly use similar imagery!  Say it ain't so!  Hey, Hitler
           went on vacations, and Bush went on vacation!  Bush = Hitler!1!1
2006/1/24-25 [Recreation/Media] UID:41504 Activity:low
1/24    DIS to acquire PIXR
        \_ Oh well, PIxar was such a good movie house.
        \_ Oh well, Pixar was such a good movie house.
        \_ Time to sell.  Not a bad deal, though, +200% in five years.  -tom
        \_ So what do some of the Pixar Sodans think of this move?
2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high
1/24    [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
        Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
        Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
        deserve neither". [nyt]
        Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
        the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate.  However,
        I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
        misquote.  Why is this?  Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
        Do they simply not care?
        \_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
        \_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
           deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
           some place like that's spreading the
           misquote?  (anyway, says it's a "paraphrase")
           \_ Good for CNN.  "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
              difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
              still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
              \_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
                 and the exact quote is debatable as well
                 \_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
                    \_ not in my view
                       \_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)?  Only for very few f() and g().
                       \_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
                          sense. welcome to america.
                          \_ but it does make sense, so ...
           (what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
           Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
           a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
           That still seems pretty close to me.
           \_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
              for non-temporary safety.  (And indeed much of government is a
              trade-off between liberty and safety.)  Now, did Bush buy
              temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
              Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
              \_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
                 Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
                 marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
                 the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
                 extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
                 liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
                 of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
                 More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
                 cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
                 done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
                 be capped.
                 \_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point.  He is
                    clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
                    the red herrings you bring up.  You *may* be correct when
                    you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
                    compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
                    it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
                    your post about unrelated issues is useless.  Misquoting
                    the man to make some political point shows a great deal
                    of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.  Which of
                    those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
                    neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
                    long-term relationship deserves neither"?  Both statements
                    long-term relationship deserve neither"?  Both statements
                    may be true, but are they equivalent?  You do understand
                    2 true statements may still not be the same.
                    \_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
                       was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
                       conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
                       quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
                       is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
                       that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
                       draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
                       distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
                       \_ No.  Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
                          called government.
                          \_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
                             purport to have given up in exchange for safety
                             were actually in your possession to begin with.
                             \_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
                       \_ If he never followed up with any further statements
                          on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
                          more to say on the matter.  Anything else is jumping
                          to unfounded conclusions.  By your reasoning, the
                          opposite of your assumption could also be said and
                          it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
                          \_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
                             medium and ask him yourself, then.
                             \_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
                                meaning to Franklin's quote.  We're saying
                                he said what he said, and reading anything
                                more into it would be unjustified.  If you
                                go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
                                the quote is silent on...".
                                more into it would be unjustified.  Looking
                                back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
                                quote is silent on..."
                             \_ ?  I'm saying we can't know.  I'm not making
                                any assumptions about what he meant.  We'll
                                never know unless there's some other written
                                document somewhere clarifying.  Why do you
                                think I'd need a time machine for anything?
                 \_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
                    "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
                    \_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
                       unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
                       honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
                       merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
                       \_ Which part is unquantifiable?  This PP's analogy
                          uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
                          "temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
                          Or you mean "essential"?  Please explain.
                          \_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
                             easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
                             and safety) is not.
                             \_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
                             \_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
                                temporary safety'?
           \_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
              argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
              communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
              communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
              public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
              key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
              the clear.
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
                 \_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
                    same as talking in public. One must assume that
                    as soon as the communications leaves the confines
                    of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
                    If you don't value the privacy of your communication
                    to the level necessary to take precautions against
                    eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
                    your communications will be intercepted.
                    I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
                    to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
                    a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
                    it is essential.
                        \_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
                           people to encrypt phone conversations.  Are you
                           saying that the government had the ability to tap
                           phone conversations for the last 100 years without
                           a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
                           \_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
                              long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
                              has also existed since at least WW2. If you
                              value your privacy enough you should use the
                              state of the art cipher system for the era in
                              which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
                              inefficient and hampers communication, but
                              that is the price of secure communication.
                              It is not just the government that has had the
                              ability to tap and record phone conversations
                              for decades. Private industry has this ability
                              as well.
                              I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
                              under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
                              communication is not an essential liberty as
                              used by Franklin.
                              long as phones have been around. It is not
                              easy to have a two way conversation but it
                              is doable. If you value your security that
                              much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
                              NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
                              of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
                              that cleartext communication is not an essential
                              liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
                              In addition, my assertion also applies to all
                              forms of communication, including letters.
                              I think that the term essential in this context
                              would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
                              them being subject to review by the post office.
                              It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
                              the ability to send letters in the clear.
        \_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
           things like right-to-own-machine-guns.  If the media doesn't point
           out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
           artifact of the right-wing media?  -tom
           \_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
              \_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
                 yes, I know it's not a misquote
                 here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
                  (Aryan Nations World Headquarters)  -tom
                  \_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
                     Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
                     isn't a popular media report.  Otherwise you're dead on.
                     \_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
                        because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
                        people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
                        When it's just a news story, you report what was
                        said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
                        those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
                        but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
                        would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
                        That's simply not the job of a reporter.
                        And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
                        Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
                        the difference is significant), you can find similar
                        misquotes at
                        and plenty of others.  -tom
                        \_ Your claim was specific.  You said "This quote is
                           more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
                           Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
                           substantiated your claim.  2 tries, and you still
                           haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
                           "this quote".  You also claimed Charlton Heston
                           misquoted Franklin.  Again, a specific claim, and
                           you have not backed that one up either.  OBTW, CNN
                           said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
                           \_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
                              libertarian nutjobs?  -tom
                              \_ Absolutely not.  Nutjobs?  Yes.  Libertarian?
                                 No, no, no, no, no!  The freepers are a bunch
                                 of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
                                 clear thinking people across the political
                                 spectrum wish would go away, but they are
                                 definitely not libertarians.  Please get the
                                 bare basics right before posting.
                                 \_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
                                    OK, how about
                                    (The Libertarian Enterprise)
                                    (Liberty For All)
                                    (Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
                                    Give it up, already.  -tom
                                    \_ That was my first post in this thread.
                                       My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
                                       is your gross misclassification of the
                                       freepers which makes me think you've
                                       either never read what they have to say
                                       and are just repeating what you've been
                                       told or worse, you have read the
                                       freeper junk and can't see they aren't
                                       libertarians at all and thus have no
                                       idea what a libertarian is.  I really
                                       don't care what libertarians might have
                                       misquoted Franklin.  Not my game.
                                    \_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
                                       of your links?  You specifically said
                                       "this quote".
                                       \_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
                              \_ You specified a particular quote.  Also,
                                 while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
                                 even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
                                 Strike 3.
                     \_ 0 for 3 isn't bad.  it could've been worse.
                        \_ I don't know, he keeps trying.  Seems to be
                           going for a solid 0 for 10.
        \_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
           domestic eardropping or not.  The real issue is that as it is
           right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
           no check and balance is in place.  So, in case of wrongfully accused
           or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
           no one can turn the case over.  It is all depend upon Bush Co
           to decide who is 'terrorist' or not.  Bush can easily use this
           mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee.  This is just like
                                \_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY!  You scoundrel!
                                   You petty traitor!  You villain!  *IC*!
                                   Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
                                   us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
                                   smears on the motd and your official
                                   publications?!  *IC*!
                                   \_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
                                      *again*, man.  Or cut back..waaaaaay back
                                      on the caffeine.
           Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
           \_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
              it is now legal to do so.  The situation is different from
              Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
              purely domestic purposes.  Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
              conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
              become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
              foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
              \_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
                 in place.
                 \_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
                    not apply to executive power during a time of war,
                    when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
                    \_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
                       whim, can claim anyone is doing something
                       related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
                       whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
                       that person invalid? And no court or legislature
                       has any recourse? Is that your contention?
                       \_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
                          those limits arguably only exist either (1)
                          during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
                          enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
                          This is clearly not peace time and this is
                          a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
                          in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
                          may not apply.
                          \_ What events will signify the end of the war?
                             We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
                             occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
                             Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
                             to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
                             "War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
                             anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
                             will have expanded powers for decades?
                             \_ I find it interesting that the balance of
                                government branches issue is so important
                                yet does anyone here not understand that
                                the President has always had the ultimate
                                power since the mid 1900s?  Without anyone
                                else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
                                Is that ok?  If so, then why don't we trust
                                the office holder with lesser responsibilities
                                than all human life on the planet?  I'm not
                                arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
                                that "super power over life and death with no
                                checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
                                listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
                                \_ Just because the President was given one
                                   important power due to military neccesity
                                   doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
                                   to do anything.
                                   \_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
                                      power to do anything he wants in wartime
                                      IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
                                      habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
                                      it were, the Pres. would have the power
                                      to do anything he deems necessary in
                                      order to protect the republic. ]
                             \_ The conditions that signify the end of the
                                war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
                                to violate the BoR will end when there are
                                no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
                                operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
                                decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
                                not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
                                such a threat to civilization, that any and
                                all means must be used to vanquish them.
                                Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
                                                   lack of domestic terrorism
                                                   since 9/11, there is no
                                                   proof that AQ et. al. are
                                                   no longer carrying out long
                                                   term operations w/in the US.
                                                   Until such proof is avail.
                                                   the emergency exists. Such
                                                   proof can be made available
                                                   by the worldwide destruction
                                                   of militant islam; thus we
                                                   do not have to rely on an
                                                   assertion of proof via the
                                                   executive branch.
                                \_ More people in the United States have been
                                   struck by lightning than died in domestic
                                   terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
                                   think you severely overreacting to a very
                                   minor threat and giving up our liberties
                                   because of a very minor problem. Your
                                   paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
                                   problem are not worth tearing up the
                                   minor threat and are giving up our liberties
                                   because of your paranoia and media generated
                                   hype and fearfulness.
                                   \_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
                                      in a year, it's no big deal.  If you
                                      receive it 20 times in a morning, you
                                      might have problems.
2006/1/24-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:41506 Activity:nil
1/24    Tax question. Currently my tax withhold is "2" (single). Usually
        I get back a few grand every year from Uncle Sam because of too
        much tax withheld. However, someone told me that it's better to
        put down "3" so that you have more in the bank to accumulate
        interest rate, and pay back Uncle Sam later. The overall gain
        would be the interest rate from the few grands that the government
        withheld. Has anyone done this and is it particularly bad? Thanks.
        \_ Everyone does it.  I think I'm claiming 6 for withholding
           purposes right now.  Your goal should probably be to be close
           to breaking even when tax time comes around; if you get a bunch
           of money back, you gave the government an interest-free loan,
           and if you have to pay a bunch of money, you might also have to
           pay a penalty.  -tom
        \_ If you withhold too little you will be subject to
  .  Whether it's
           a good idea to withhold more or less really depends on your
           spending habits.
           \_ Note that you can also be penalized for withholding too
              much. You should owe/overpay within 10% of the amount due.
              \_ Wow, I didn't know there's an overpayment penalty.  Do you
                 have a pointer to more info re that?
                 \_ I bet this entirely academic, but ...
                 \_ I bet this is entirely academic, but ...
                    "An employee who files a false Form W-4 may be subject
                    to a $500 penalty."  Of course, it depends on what the
                    meaning of "false" is:  "Sometimes this cannot be done
                    simply by claiming an exemption for each member of a
                    family. The employee may be entitled to additional
                    withholding allowances, as provided in the regulations.
                    Code section 3402(m), section 31.3402(m)1, Employment Tax
                    to a $500 penalty."
                    \_ Unfortunately this doesn't say there's an overpayment
                       penalty.  To be honest, I was suprised to hear that
                       the IRS would penalize overpayment, no matter by how
        \_ Don't forget that you need to pay tax on the interest from your
           bank account, so the overall gain is lower than you think.
2019/06/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:24 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>