Quote from: BitMagic on October 28, 2011, 10:14:21 PM

Ahaha, I was totally just taking a potshot. You are insane.

Ad hominem. Again, immature; defensive ridicule is the sign of a lazy mind. If you can't defend your position logically, it's better to not say anything at all.

Quote from: BitMagic on October 28, 2011, 10:14:21 PM

Quote from: miscreanity on October 28, 2011, 09:55:33 PM

A hole was dug in the ground because there was no hole? What's the purpose of the hole (tax system)? When blindly following decrees without exercising reason and asking 'why', the activities are meaningless.

It was a pointless tautology. Here: "It was patched, because there was a hole." The wash sale law hasn't led to another hole. You're falsely implying it has, and by extension, all additions to the tax code do. This is a faulty argument.

Yes, it was intended as such. Many laws are pointless as well, only serving to cover up mistakes (or sometimes intentional "errors") that generally introduce additional riders which produce more problems than they solve.

Your rebuttal is just a different perspective; I offer that there would be no hole if the present tax system did not exist. I futher suggest that the present tax system is destructive and has built a byzantine morass of legislation that obfuscates the legitimate utilization of taxpayer wealth while precluding meaningful reform. Therefore, unless tax system bloat in most of today's nations is torn down to a point of stability, additional changes will serve to disguise and exacerbate the root problem while trapping the citizenry in an escalating cost-basis.

There was no suggestion that it already has been taken advantage of, only that it could be. Your assertion that there is no hole is tenuous because, as mentioned above, any law at higher levels rests upon prior legislation that may be mis- or re-interpreted by judicial decree. Indeed, there have been many instances of politicians proposing "solutions" that benefit only themselves or a lobbying interest, and judicial decisions that have overturned prior rulings.

The relevant quote:

Quote from: miscreanity on October 28, 2011, 01:06:49 AM

Quote from: BitMagic on October 27, 2011, 06:42:21 PM

It's not biased, it's to prevent a scam called "wash sales," where you constantly realize and accrue tax credits on downtrends, but only pay once on the uptrend.

Prevention of "wash sales" because of a deficiency in the tax code that created a loophole? What happens if an issue is found with the 30-day rule? Another piece of tax code intended to patch yet another hole in a mess that never had to exist initially? Why?

Moving on...

Quote from: miscreanity on October 28, 2011, 09:55:33 PM

So instead of one point of failure, there will be multiple points of failure; fixing one problem creates others. Fighting entropy demands simplicity, not complexity.

Quote from: BitMagic on October 28, 2011, 10:14:21 PM

Yes, this is perfectly rational. Maybe we should go back to Windows 95, because, you know, plugging security breaches has just been a failed fight with entropy. Roll Eyes

(Wrong, it's been a failed fight with destructive greed that, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, constantly looks for weaknesses). Again, I see nothing to suggest that complexity necessarily implies more failure.

As entertaining as the fight video was, including a few more informative links would help. Perhaps an analysis of the 30-day rule or a study on entropy.

Anyway, good example. Windows was riddled with security holes and bloat; instead of fixing the underlying codebase, additional features were heaped on. Microsoft finally deciding to take the correct steps to remedy that situation: the entire platform was audited, heavily redesigned and cleaned up. Much of it was simplified and standardized throughout, much more so than before. That also allowed for cleaner implementation of newer features and more reliable updates to existing ones.

Isomorphisms abound: whether "destructive greed" from political corruption or malware, the end result is damage. Mitigating that is not done by obscuring the core, but by redesigning it with updated techniques that fundamentally strengthen it. I agree that complexity alone does not lead to failure, so long as the overall system is stable; complexity built from a faulty or damaged base increases the potential for collapse. If an unstable base is not addressed, adding patches to it counter-intuitively destabilizes the system further instead of helping.

Since western nations have settled into a habitual pattern of adding complexity by way of attempts at legislating problems out of existence, the underlying decay will force a familiar pattern of behavior which involves surreptitious theft until blatant abuse of power becomes the only option available to maintain existing governments. We have seen the early stages of that with bank bailouts since the 1980s and recent nationalization of certain major corporations. Those are the easy targets - individual citizens are in the crosshairs, but will be persuaded to offer themselves up by the the millions, only to be devoured by their respective nations.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana

Quote from: BitMagic on October 28, 2011, 10:14:21 PM

Happy to be reasoned, successful, and also love calling you an idiot.

Rationalization is not reason. Nor is self-aggrandizement and/or proclamation of "success" a certification of reputability.

If you have a particular area of expertise and would like to discuss concepts, I'd be glad to learn and share ideas. A flame-war isn't productive.