This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Sunday, March 6, 2011

"Best of FSK" - February 2011

In February 2011, my most popular posts by Absolute Unique Pageviews were:

  1. Who's the Richest Man in the World? (343)
  2. Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (316)
  3. Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (290)
  4. The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (237)
  5. BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (229)
  6. Ruby on Rails Sucks! (216)
  7. The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (209)
  8. The Compound Interest Paradox (167)
  9. Is The Quatloos Website Run By The State? (109)
  10. Satanic Death Hospitals (107)
  11. Goldman Sachs and Facebook (107)
  12. The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (97)
  13. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (79)
  14. Car Insurance vs. Health Insurance (79)
  15. Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (76)
  16. The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (70)
  17. The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (66)
  18. Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (66)
  19. Wicked And Copyright Law (64)
  20. The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (61)
  21. Agorist Philosophy Overview (58)
  22. The Federal Reserve and Income Tax Conspiracy Theory (54)
  23. Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (53)
  24. Does Michael J. Fox Have Tardive Dyskinesia? (51)
  25. Reader Mail #65 - Dealing With Scum (45)
  26. The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (42)
  27. The Tally Stick Monetary System (40)
  28. The Communist Manifesto's Successful Implementation in the USA (39)
  29. The Five Levels of the Economy (39)
  30. StackOverflow Sucks! (39)
  31. Incentive Stock Options and Startups (39)
  32. Jared Lee Loughner (39)
  33. Are College Athletes Exploited? (38)
  34. Five Year Plan (37)
  35. JP Morgan Chase Accepts Gold As Margin Collateral (37)
  36. The Yield Curve And QE2 (36)
  37. Your Strawman Corporation (34)
  38. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (33)
  39. Jon Stewat Hypocrisy (33)
  40. Justin Bieber And Misandry (33)
  41. President Obama Announces Plan To Shut Down Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac (33)
  42. The Egyptian Protesters Accomplished Nothing (32)
  43. The Compound Interest Paradox - a Simpler Explanation (31)
If you only count posts published in February, the most popular were:
  1. Is The Quatloos Website Run By The State? (109)
  2. Wicked And Copyright Law (64)
  3. Five Year Plan (37)
  4. JP Morgan Chase Accepts Gold As Margin Collateral (37)
  5. The Yield Curve And QE2 (36)
  6. Jon Stewat Hypocrisy (33)
  7. Justin Bieber And Misandry (33)
  8. President Obama Announces Plan To Shut Down Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac (33)
  9. The Egyptian Protesters Accomplished Nothing (32)
  10. Why Does Confidence Matter? (28)

Saturday, March 5, 2011

IBM's Watson On Jeopardy

I watched part 3 of IBM's Watson computer on Jeopardy. It was pretty impressive, that they could make a computer that frequently gave correct answers.

The computer had some unfair advantages. The most obvious advantage was near-perfect buzzer timing. Whenever both the computer and a human knew the answer, the computer usually got to the buzzer first.

To make it a more valid comparison, they should have sequestered each player and given them the opportunity to answer each question without buzzer competition. The computer may not have won under those conditions. In Jeopardy, the "buzzer advantage" is huge.

There's a light that tells players when they're allowed to buzz in. The computer was given the buzzer signal electronically. To be fair, the computer should have been forced to point a camera at the light and parse the signal.

The computer crashed while the show was taping. They stopped the show while the computer was repaired. That had to do that, because that was the whole point of the show. Stopping when the computer crashes is a type of cheating. A human player would not be allowed to take a 1 hour break during the show. The breaks were edited out of the show that aired.

The computer was given the question electronically, at the same time players saw the question. The computer should have been forced to point a camera at the question screen and parse it out.

They didn't include audio/video Daily Doubles, because the computer hadn't been programmed to parse them.

The show was one big advertisement for IBM. It's not clear that Watson would be as useful in other contexts. For example, a computer lawyer probably would not handle the logical contradictions of insane State law as well as a human. Could a computer judge match the insane pro-State trolling of a human judge?

The Watson computer had unfair advantages, especially the buzzer advantage and the "stop taping when it crashes" advantage. Still, it was impressive to write a computer that could answer more than half the questions.

The computer made two obvious mistakes a human wouldn't make. It repeated an answer given by a previous player, because it hadn't been programmed to parse that. It thought "Toronto" was a US city, because it was programmed to downplay the value of categories. (Also, on "Final Jeopardy", the computer is forced to answer. It can't pass if it has no clue. The computer was programmed to give its best "Final Jeopardy" guess even if it had low confidence.) The computer would not have passed a "Turing Test", because it made mistakes no human would make.

The computer had some unfair advantages. Still, it was impressive to make a computer that could answer more than half the questions correctly.

Friday, March 4, 2011

$3.7 Trillion Wasted

The projected Federal budget for next year is $3.7 trillion. That's a lot.

Here's a way to get that number into perspective. There are approximately 300 million Americans. $3.7T divided by 300M is $10k per person.

The Federal government costs $10k per person! (BTW, I pay more than $10k in Federal income taxes.) That's almost enough to buy everyone a new car!

That's a good analogy. Would you rather have the Federal government, or a new car *EVERY YEAR*? I'd prefer to opt out. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice. If I refuse to pay tribute, then people with guns will come to kidnap/kill me.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

PayPal Or Post Office

This article was interesting. PayPal refused to process payments to Bradley Manning's legal defense fund. (It has since been reinstated.) PayPal also froze WikiLeaks' account.

This is one fallacy of using the State financial system. You can be cut off for politically-motivated reasons.

A prosecutor can get an injunction freezing your bank account. Then, you can't even afford to hire a lawyer to contest the asset seizure!

This article is interesting. The author of TortoiseSVN had a disagreement with PayPal and had his account frozen. "PayPal account frozen" freezes your entire bank account. Now, you have the burden of proof to recover it.

If you use PayPal, use that account *ONLY* for PayPal and keep the minimum balance. Your only account at that bank should be your PayPal account. I've heard too many horror stories.

PayPal also froze Markus Persson's account, the author of MineCraft.

If you use the State banking system, and you're unexpectedly successful, then the State may freeze your account, claiming fraud!

Suppose I put a "donate via PayPal" option on my blog. In addition to any PalPal fees, I have to declare the income and pay tax on it. PayPal automatically reports transactions to the IRS.

For a $30 transaction, PayPal charges a fee of 2.9% plus $0.30. This is a fee of $1.17, *PLUS* the recipient owes income taxes.

Suppose you mail a one ounce silver round to me. The postage is $0.81. That's cheaper than PayPal. Plus, I wouldn't have to declare it as income!

Is it legal to mail silver? Yes. Various dealers do this. However, there is a risk that your package could be tampered with. Also, if too many people are mailing you silver, then the post office may rat you out to the IRS.

To mitigate the "Post Office rats you out to the IRS risk.", an agorist courier service is needed.

That was an amusing calculation! It's cheaper to mail someone a 1 ounce silver round, than to pay them via PayPal! PayPal transactions are taxable, in addition to the PayPal fees. If you get physical silver it's tax-free!

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

The Federal Reserve and Taxes

Some comments deserve their own separate post.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Federal Reserve Dual Mandate":

Yes! You've nailed it!

How about other common misconceptions, such as:

1) Is Federal Reserve a private bank or a government organization?

2) Does the government really needs/wants your tax money?

True or not? Why?

I am excited to see if you have really cracked your brainwashing, and can actually give a correct answer.

State propaganda is built like an onion, in layers. These layers are opposing each-other, so that those on neighboring layers oppose each-other in their opinions. The majority of sheep just sees the top layer. The others who have different degree cracks in their constructed consciousness are attached to different internal layers and being a smaller part of a whole to begin with, they are further separated from each-other by the fact that their near laying layers are opposing each-other.
For instance the majority of dissenters will remain on level one, and oppose both the prime pareto population on level zero and the other 20% of all dissenters who are on level 2 and below. Layers do not necessarily need to be constructed to go very deep, because even at the level 2 (Counting from the surface: zero, 1st under, 2nd under), there would be only about 20% of 20% of the whole, which is only 4%, and that if everyone on zero was conscious. But since most people on level zero just breath, screw, and watch American Idol, we need to add another 1/5 reduction and end up at about 0.8%.

This is how you build power base and diminish any resistance.

Onion structure of propaganda is the Matrix.
Beware of the onion and consider the proximity of your approximation before you give the answer.

Love reading you.
1. The Federal Reserve Regional Banks are privately owned corporations. The shareholder list is not public. Allegedly, big banks in the region are required to buy.

The shareholders nominate Federal Reserve executives. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors accepts or rejects the nomination.

For example, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President Tom Hoenig was appointed by the shareholders of the St. Louis branch. The Board of Governors then approved his nomination.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve 14 year terms. The chairman gets a 4 year term. However, he may also have a term as a regular member of the Board of Governors.

With 14 year terms, there's practically no oversight.

In practice, Congress has virtually no power over the Federal Reserve. In practice, Federal judges have no power of the Federal Reserve.

There was a FOIA lawsuit involving the Federal Reserve and Bloomberg, regarding disclosure of secret loans. The judge ruled in favor of Bloomberg. The Federal Reserve told the Federal judge to shove it.

Members of Congress can ask the Federal Reserve for records. As subcommittee chairman, I believe Ron Paul has Congressional subpoena power now. The Federal Reserve can refuse any disclosure request by Congress.

The Federal Reserve can lend as much money they want, to whoever they want, at whatever interest rate they want, without any public disclosure.

Congress could, by a majority vote, change the Federal Reserve law. However, due to lobbyists and the Federal Reserve money firehose, this is politically impossible. The banksters will always lobby against reform. Besides, most politicians are brainwashed to believe "Monetary policy is complicated! Leave it to the Federal Reserve and banksters!"

2. Yes, taxes are needed to preserve the scam.

If there were no taxes, people would boycott the government's paper money and use other forms of money.

In the present, gold and silver are taxed unfairly/Unconstitutionally. That's the reason people don't use gold and silver as money. The taxes make it functionally illegal.

In theory, government could finance itself entirely via inflation. However, the income tax needed in a paper monetary system. The income tax is a deterrent to using other forms of money.

So, the answer to "Are taxes needed?" is "Yes, but only indirectly."

In the present, the government can hike the inflation tax while leaving income taxes constant. They're only constrained by the risk of hyperinflation and complete currency collapse.

Also, if there were no taxes, then inflation would be a lot higher. Taxes counterbalance the inflation of deficit spending.

Taxes prevent the slaves from boycotting the State paper money.

Here's a commonly-cited quote:
Under the old gold standard, taxes and borrowing did fund spending. Today taxes function only to regulate aggregate demand and to control prices. The federal deficit is merely the difference between the numbers changed upward when the government spends, and the numbers changed downward when it taxes. Taxes therefore function to regulate aggregate demand, not to raise revenue, per se. Tax cuts increase our spending power, tax hikes lower it. This is indisputable operational fact, not theory or philosophy.
Some insiders know what's really going on. The only point I would add is "Taxes prevent people from boycotting the government's money. Federal Reserve Notes are literally work permission points. People must pay taxes whenever they work. Taxes must be paid in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. Taxes create an artificial demand for State paper money, which is otherwise intrinsically worthless."

State insiders know how to manage a huge extortion racket as well as I know how to write software. The business of government is theft and extortion. Insiders know their business well.

Actually, pro-State brainwashing is more severe than you think. At one time, I really believed 2+2=5, because it made more sense than my other observations.

What happened is that I had false beliefs I held more tightly than all the Math I ever learned. I had to question all the Math I ever learned, before I started questioning my other false beliefs.

For me, one layer of cracking my brainwashing was "OMFG! I have false beliefs that I believe more strongly than all the Math I ever learned!"

I definitely think I'm ahead of nearly everyone else, on cracking their pro-State brainwashing. It isn't just false logical beliefs. There also are false emotional beliefs.

The people who watch American Idol and don't do anything else are mostly irrelevant. Once a good agorist trading system is working, they probably can be recruited as workers once they see there's something in it for them.

It also makes me wonder if, someone in some military research lab, is thinking "WTF is up with FSK? What happened?" For example, I suspect (but can't prove) that my subway encounter with Chuck Schumer was organized by someone. I was able to instantly tell that he was a criminally insane psychopath. If his bodyguards were paying attention, they got a good lesson. (I didn't do it on purpose. My "Eww! Evil!" reflex is pretty strong. Most people can't do that. That would be a useful skill for an honest policeman to have.)

I also suspect that some of my coworkers might be members of a secret task force asking "WTF? Why is the economy falling apart." I wonder if they hired me so they could get my viewpoint? One of them said to me "All the leaders are empty suits. They're all good at political maneuvering, but they aren't real leaders." This guarantees collapse, when all the leaders are political schemers lining their pockets, rather than being true leaders.

Not everyone who works for government is a clueless twit. There probably are some government insiders who know that there's a *SERIOUS* problem, but they're politically restrained and can't do anything about it.

Muzzammil S. Hassan

This story was interesting. Muzzammil S. Hassan murdered his wife.

This criminal defense lawyer blog post was interesting. Is he angry "This scumbag murdered his wife!"? No. Muzzammil S. Hassan committed a far greater crime. He decided to represent himself pro se.

He admits that he murdered his wife. His lawyers wanted to use a "temporary insanity" defense, which would have led to some jail time even if it worked. He insisted on using a "battered spouse defense". His lawyers refused. He fired his lawyers and decided to represent himself.

Of course, I reject the "battered spouse defense" and "temporary insanity defense". He deserved to get convicted, because he's a murderer, and not because he chose to represent himself. (Unfortunately, the way the current legal system works, imprisoning someone is the only solution. The correct answer is that he should be forced to work and pay compensation to her relatives. Muzzammil S. Hassan probably isn't at risk for being a repeat offender, so imprisoning him is wasteful.)

Divorce laws in the USA are biased against men. His wife filed for divorce just before he murdered her. There was a history of him abusing her. "Unfair divorce laws" are a reason to choose your wife carefully. That doesn't justify murder.

Even if his wife were evil, it was his fault for making the mistake of marrying her. No reasonable jury would be convinced by "I murdered my wife because she deserved it."

His wife had filed for divorce just before he murdered her. That's a strong argument in favor of conviction. Muzzammil S. Hassan probably would have been convicted anyway, even if he chose to use a lawyer.

Muzzammil S. Hassan had reasonably a successful career. He could have afforded an expensive lawyer. He chose to represent himself.

The mainstream media covered the story. The spin is "HAHAHA!! Look at that idiot pro se defendant! Woe to all who disrespect the State lawyer cartel!"

I was offended by the lawyers rooting for a conviction. They weren't saying "He deserves to be convicted because he's a murderer." They were saying "He deserves to be convicted because he's a pro se defendant."

Lawyers say "Hooray! If you represent yourself in court, you're guaranteed to lose!" Lawyers like the fact that the legal system ruins pro se defendants. I view this as a negative feature. If you represent yourself, then you don't get a fair trial. That's a severe argument *AGAINST* the State legal system.

When a crazy obviously-guilty criminal decides to go pro se, the State media heavily promotes the trial. The fnord is "All pro se defendants are guilty. All pro se defendants are fools. All pro se defendants are insane."

The State media cartel does *NOT* discuss pro se defendants like Julian Heicklen. Every pro se defendant is obviously guilty. The State media doesn't lie about how Julian Heicklen is a scumbag. They merely don't discuss it at all.

Some crazy murderers are pro se defendants. Some people with a history of abuse by the State choose to be pro se defendants; they know that their lawyer is really working for the State and prosecutor. Some political prisoners choose to go pro se. For example, Nelson Mandela chose to be a pro se defendant, when he was prosecuted for organizing the anti-apartheid movement.

Due to the crashing economy, many defendants are choosing to go pro se. They literally can't afford a lawyer. Of course, prosecutors still have a virtually unlimited budget.

If I'm successful at promoting agorism and as a working agorist, State terrorists will try to kidnap and torture me. Once State thugs decide to terrorize you, you've already lost. Via "asset forfeiture", State thugs can seize your property without a trial. Even if acquitted, you aren't reimbursed for the time and expense and stress of a trial.

The State "justice" system is biased against defendants, whether you're pro se or use a lawyer. If I were victim in a politically-motivated trial, I'd prefer to go pro se. However, it's a tough decision. The State "justice" system mistreats pro se defendants. I probably would be a good speaker, and might succeed pro se. However, the judge and prosecutor would try to pack the jury with pro-State trolls.

I was offended by State lawyers discussing this trial. There were not saying "This guy is a scumbag because he murdered his wife." They were saying "This guy is a scumbag because he's a pro se defendant." I found that attitude very offensive.

In a politically-motivated trial, a State lawyer may be useless, because he's barred from mentioning jury nullification or questioning the legitimacy of the law. However, even a pro se defendant can be found in "contempt of court" for making a "jury nullification" argument to a jury. The judge has a lot of discretion. However, if a judge interrupts a pro se defendant, that might give the jury the impression that the judge is biased against the defendant. If a judge interrupts a lawyer, the jury will presume it's OK. The lawyer can't be too persistent, because he risks losing his law license. If you're a pro se defendant, you can make arguments that a lawyer cannot.

There's another amusing trivia bit. A defendant can be ruled "mentally competent for trial" but not "mentally competent to represent himself". That seems like a legal trick, to prevent people from representing themselves. Given that I've been unfairly hospitalized, a judge might rule "FSK is not competent to represent himself."

The State media promotes crazy pro se defendants. This helps promote the lie that *ALL* pro se defendants are guilty.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Tea Party Candidate Betrayal

This story was offensive. There are 40 Congressmen who were "Tea Party" candidates. 31 of these candidates voted *FOR* renewing the Patriot Act on the first vote.

(The Patriot Act renewal law was first introduced under a "fast-track" procedural rule that required a 2/3 majority. The re-vote required only a simple majority. It was passed on the re-vote.)

It is offensive that a "Tea Party" candidate would vote to renew the Patriot Act.

Many of the "Tea Party" candidates were establishment-backed candidates. They talked about small government, but betrayed their promises once elected. You can't achieve real reform by voting.

This is a common State parasite trick. If non-approved idea X becomes popular, you promote candidates who vaguely promise X. Once elected, they break their promise. They attract and placate voters, because a vague promise of X is better than nothing.

If a candidate breaks his promise, there is no recourse. All you can do is wait for the next election, and vote for another insider-approved candidate.

State insiders are hypocritical. They say "If you're honest, you have nothing to fear from surveillance." Conversely, if you videotape an on-duty policeman, you'll probably be charged with a crime. "Honest" policemen don't want the slaves videotaping them.

It was incredibly offensive, that "Tea Party" candidates voted to renew the Patriot Act. You can't achieve real reform by voting. There are too many dirty tricks that State insiders can use. Voting is pointless.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.