Something Random

sedrosken

Florida Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,602
Location
Eglin AFB Area
Website
sedrosken.xyz
Good. I'm sure you can put it to some use.

There was a minor scare involving the graphics card and Windows 8.1 x64 drivers, but I got that ironed out and it looks like we're in business. I'm torn between spending the cash I've got on a GTX750Ti or a 1080p monitor, or simply holding on to it. I've got nothing but the 15" 1024x768 panel at the moment, but this Thursday I'm grabbing a 19" CRT monitor from a friend that I'm betting can do at least 1600x1200 at 70Hz or so, as it was part of the college's CAD/CAM lab in its glory days. That shifts my focus over to the graphics card, which, while not as dire a situation as it would be if it were merely integrated, isn't too much better, being roughly 3 or so a bunch of generations behind what is new today. Tell me, is it worth the cash to drop a GTX750Ti in a C2Q system, or would I simply be wasting my time? Of course, I may want to pick up a 1080p panel for the primary display and relegate the 1600x1200 CRT to secondary duty. But that will have the added bonus of making me choose which monitor I want text to be readable on -- AFAIK you can't enable ClearType for one display and not the other. Or, I could find some sort of happy medium -- go with a GT730 card and buy a smaller, cheaper 1080p monitor. I could even upgrade my choice in mouse and keyboard, too, as I'm currently rocking a 15-year-old PS/2 optical mouse and keyboard combo, the keyboard being a Dell OEM pack-in from before Windows XP launched. This thing doesn't even have PS/2 ports natively -- I had to use a USB adapter.

An interesting thing this has that I have never used and probably will never use is the FireWire ports.



One thing that I am doing regardless is picking up a couple SATA cables.
 

sedrosken

Florida Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,602
Location
Eglin AFB Area
Website
sedrosken.xyz
So I figured out how to map my user libraries (can't think of a better name for them, but they aren't the libraries that shipped with Win7+ -- I'm talking about the ones you find in the This PC folder in Windows 8.1) to the hard drive by right clicking the folders and hitting Properties. I'm probably a bit late to that party, but this is some cool stuff.

Holy crap, this HD 3650 isn't a complete piece of crap -- I'm running Skyrim at low detail at 1024x768 (monitor limitation, I'm sure) at 60 fps. I might just... not... buy a new graphics card, pending Windows 10's ability to carry over drivers from Windows 8/8.1.

I'm going to hold back as much money as I can for driver's training this summer, which I mostly have to cover by myself. No, I haven't taken it yet. Haven't had the time or the money, and driver's training, while free in my dad's home state of Kentucky, is not free (as a matter of fact the cheapest we could find it last summer was $300.00 for those under-18) here in Michigan, apparently. I do have to buy at least one SATA cable, though. I have no spares and I had to borrow the cable from the DVD-RW drive (which I'm still not sure if it works or not, though I'm betting that it does) to hook up my hard drive and SSD at the same time. The CRT should do okay for my display until further notice, provided it's actually 1600x1200 and can run that res at anything above 60Hz, which to me is akin to looking directly into a strobe light.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Your right to free religious expression ends when it begins to impact other people, most particularly those who do not happen to share the same beliefs as you and even moreso when you claim to make yourself available to the general public.
I'm sorry, but that's not just correct. That's not how the Constitution or Federal statutes frame freedom of religion.

Only the twisted logic of the left could argue that discriminating against one group, attempting to deny them access to society because of their religious beliefs forcing them to live in communes with each other, is okay to stop their imaginary discrimination against others.

Most Christians believe abortion is wrong. Doctors who hold those views don't perform abortions. I don't see public outcry from the left that women looking to have an abortion are being discriminated against by those doctors. Those women instead go to somewhere that will provide them the service they're after.

A Kosher or Halal meat market won't sell pork. Some people like to eat pork. I don't see people outraged that the store owners and employees are discriminating against pork eaters by practicing their religious beliefs and demand they accommodate pork eaters by selling pork. Instead people who want to buy pork go buy it somewhere else.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
SD,

I think Merc's point is more about a business offering services to the general public which decides not to offer those services to some group because that group offends the owner. As an example, if you sell wedding cakes then you have to sell them to whomever wants one and is able/willing to pay. That's quite different than Kosher or Halal butchers who won't sell pork, period. If a gay couple wanted pork from such a place and they were refused, it's not discrimination because any other customer asking for pork would be treated exactly the same way.

On another note, I'll readily admit I'm not thrilled by the concept of homosexuality, mostly because it serves no biological imperative like heterosexuality. That said, I'm not about to tell people they can't do what they want in the bedroom, or treat homosexuals any differently. The reason is admittedly selfish. Such things inevitably start you down a slippery slope where sooner or later some group will find something YOU do offensive, then seek to restrict or ban it. The only things society should ban or restrict are those which cause harm to others. Two dudes banging each other doesn't harm me or offend me unless they're doing it in public. In that case though there are already laws against lewd behavior which apply equally to heterosexual or homosexual couples.

The bottom line though is anyone going into a situation where they're dealing with the general public has to accept that they may need to serve people who may not share their ideals.

I do agree with you though about situations where a homosexual couple will attempt to patronize a business which they know discriminates when a business which doesn't and sells what they want is available. That to me is just needlessly provocative.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Only the twisted logic of the left could argue that discriminating against one group, attempting to deny them access to society because of their religious beliefs forcing them to live in communes with each other, is okay to stop their imaginary discrimination against others.

There's no discrimination here. If your religion says it's OK to murder nonbelievers, it's still against secular law. Are you being oppressed for not being allowed to kill heathens? Or are you simply paying the price of living in a regulated and civil society? If you really feel like you HAVE to murder nonbelievers in order to practice your religion, go ahead and try it and see how far your argument gets with a judge. By the same token, you don't have a right to treat some members of the public differently from others on the basis of race, age (over 40) or religious practice, as those are protected classes here in the United States. In some places, sexual practice and gender identity (which would then apply equally to heterosexuality and cisgendered identity) are given the same elevated status. Absent that status, people are free to discriminate on that basis.

In Indiana, we have specifically enshrined in law the right of the religious to treat some other humans differently on the basis of religious belief. This is problematic because in many cases there's no specific religious cause for doing so, at least in primary scriptures of major religions.

Most Christians believe abortion is wrong.

By most you mean some, right? Or is this a "No True Scotsman" issue for you? I suspect the percentage of Unitarians or Methodists who feel that way about it is rather different from the percentage of Southern Baptists. Moreover, many people (including, thankfully, a enough judges) do understand that it's a deeply personal choice that depends on a huge number of prevailing circumstances and that it's probably incorrect to make that judgment for other people and to give that judgment a place in law. Some christians (in my opinion, the better ones) also recognize that not everyone has the same religious faith they have and that we do not live in a christian theocracy.

You might want to read "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion", which specifically discusses what happens when a clinic worker encounters someone normally on the picket line waiting for services. It's a well-written and interesting piece.

Doctors who hold those views don't perform abortions. I don't see public outcry from the left that women looking to have an abortion are being discriminated against by those doctors. Those women instead go to somewhere that will provide them the service they're after.

As a rule, we don't ask physicians to work outside their specialization absent an emergency circumstance. Are there special cakes or photographs for gay couples now?
I would expect any physician to know the rudimentary procedure, just as I'd expect them to be able to give a basic neurological exam, perform an appendectomy or take blood pressure.

A Kosher or Halal meat market won't sell pork. Some people like to eat pork. I don't see people outraged that the store owners and employees are discriminating against pork eaters by practicing their religious beliefs and demand they accommodate pork eaters by selling pork. Instead people who want to buy pork go buy it somewhere else.

No one is asking Christian bookstores to start carrying Hustler. No one is forcing Baptist ministers to marry gays. But if a member of the general public walks into a business that is open to the general public and asks for goods or services normally offered by that business, that good or service should be provided, regardless of the race, religion, gender pronoun or sex hole preference of the customer. I occasionally have work for people I believe are terrible bigots. I do it and I keep my opinions to myself unless I'm specifically and personally confronted regarding their beliefs. If you have a store or sell a service to the public, you're just going to have to accept that occasionally you're going to have to bake a cake for a sodomite or a Jew.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
On another note, I'll readily admit I'm not thrilled by the concept of homosexuality, mostly because it serves no biological imperative like heterosexuality.

1. Human relationships are not about biological imperative. 80 year old people still marry. 25 year old heterosexuals decide to remain childless. You can think gay sex is icky and everyone is OK with that. I promise I can find a dozen or so human beings in a Golden Corral buffet or a Wal-mart whose heterosexual coupling is subjectively a lot grosser than the idea of a Chris Pratt/Chris Evans man sandwich.
2. Evolutionary Biology does suggest that there's a benefit to couplings that don't produce offspring. In essence, the support provided by infertile couples allows the offspring of closely related members of a species to better succeed, thereby ensuring the survival of a given genetic line.

I do agree with you though about situations where a homosexual couple will attempt to patronize a business which they know discriminates when a business which doesn't and sells what they want is available. That to me is just needlessly provocative.

How the hell would you know that a baker or photographer is going to have a hissy fit over your choice in marriage partner before you walked in and sampled a cake? Would you still believe that the same behavior is "provocative" if the baker in question felt as strongly that fat people shouldn't get married? Can you possibly see how a life of such discrimination during the planning of such a major event might cause a degree of indignity sufficient to result in legal action?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
If your religion says it's OK to murder nonbelievers, it's still against secular law. Are you being oppressed for not being allowed to kill heathens? Or are you simply paying the price of living in a regulated and civil society? If you really feel like you HAVE to murder nonbelievers in order to practice your religion, go ahead and try it and see how far your argument gets with a judge.
Right, cause that's entirely similar. :scratch: People in the US have the right to free exercise of their religion. Sure it doesn't allow for people to be murdered as part of the religion, but it also doesn't restrict free exercise of their religion simply because some people find it annoying, inconvenient, or might be offended. Just like we don't restrict speech that some people might find annoying, inconvenient or offensive. It's like I said earlier. The gov't structure in the US doesn't guarantee people the ability to live free from the impact of religion. If people want to live free from the impact of religion maybe they're the ones who should withdraw from society and live in a compound somewhere rather than trying to take away the rights of others.
 

sedrosken

Florida Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,602
Location
Eglin AFB Area
Website
sedrosken.xyz
I don't necessarily care if someone's gay or bisexual or whatever, it's not my business. Less so is it the business of... Well, businesses. I support gay marriage through and through, because no one's getting hurt by it and everyone should have the same rights as anyone else. This law in Indiana is discrimination at its worst -- not simply not covered by law, but actively supported by it.

As for the matter of freedom of religion -- I support that too, but when it starts infringing on others' rights I have issues. For example, say a guy sacrifices a goat or something to their god. In the eyes of the law, even if it's mandated by his religion, they're still gonna stick him with an animal cruelty charge. Or will they? I'm starting to confuse myself. Maybe that's just a bad example.

jtr -- so if you disapprove of homosexual relationships because they lack the sort of biological imperitive that heterosexual relationships do, then what are your thoughts on that same heterosexual couple actively trying to prevent any resulting pregnancies from their relations? Sex is sex is sex, as far as I'm concerned, and as long as no one's being hurt and everything is consensual I just can't find it in myself to give much of a damn about what's going on behind their closed doors. Personally I'm much more occupied with what (isn't) going on behind mine.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Right, cause that's entirely similar. :scratch: People in the US have the right to free exercise of their religion.

Which is why we don't prosecute fundamentalist mormons for polygamy and sexual assault of minors? Oh wait. We do exactly that.

Your right to religious freedom ends when it impinges on the rights of others. You don't get to choose what part of the general public you serve if you claim to serve the general public and you ESPECIALLY don't get to decide that your religion allows you to treat others as subhuman in your capacity as a person who conducts business with the public. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
So I figured out how to map my user libraries (can't think of a better name for them, but they aren't the libraries that shipped with Win7+ -- I'm talking about the ones you find in the This PC folder in Windows 8.1) to the hard drive by right clicking the folders and hitting Properties. I'm probably a bit late to that party, but this is some cool stuff.

Technically, the folders list that shows up under This PC are just personal folders in your home directory. The Libraries/Home Directory folders distinction is something that a lot of people don't understand and moreover, drives a lot of people nuts. I wish Microsoft would merge or somehow clarify the concept because having multiple points of entry in this case is something that's handled really poorly.

Libraries are still available in Windows 8. The default folder view just hides them. You can turn them on by right clicking in the left-hand pane of the File Explorer window.

Holy crap, this HD 3650 isn't a complete piece of crap -- I'm running Skyrim at low detail at 1024x768 (monitor limitation, I'm sure) at 60 fps. I might just... not... buy a new graphics card, pending Windows 10's ability to carry over drivers from Windows 8/8.1.

The things that are really keeping your C2Q system in the running is having more than 4GB RAM and discrete video. You're probably about on par with the desktop i3 of two or three CPU generations ago, but if you're doing the apples to oranges comparison to a mobile i3, you're actually slightly better off with the 6 year old Core 2 rather than a relatively new i3-4030U. By broke teenager standards, that's still a pretty beastly computer.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Which is why we don't prosecute fundamentalist mormons for polygamy and sexual assault of minors? Oh wait. We do exactly that.

Your right to religious freedom ends when it impinges on the rights of others. You don't get to choose what part of the general public you serve if you claim to serve the general public and you ESPECIALLY don't get to decide that your religion allows you to treat others as subhuman in your capacity as a person who conducts business with the public. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Look, it's clear from your intolerance and contempt toward religious people who have deeply held beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage that any attempt to continue this discussion with you is utterly pointless. You treat those religious people exactly as you accuse them of treating others.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Look, it's clear from your intolerance and contempt toward religious people who have deeply held beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage that any attempt to continue this discussion with you is utterly pointless. You treat those religious people exactly as you accuse them of treating others.

I do so with full justification. If you want to live in an echo chamber where everyone who disagrees with you is an oppressor, you're free to do that. Just go ahead and be the victim you feel you need to be.

bf50778e37497705df59a0123e4f00f2.jpg
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
1. Human relationships are not about biological imperative. 80 year old people still marry. 25 year old heterosexuals decide to remain childless. You can think gay sex is icky and everyone is OK with that. I promise I can find a dozen or so human beings in a Golden Corral buffet or a Wal-mart whose heterosexual coupling is subjectively a lot grosser than the idea of a Chris Pratt/Chris Evans man sandwich.
Sure, you can find all kinds of examples of gross heterosexual sex. That wasn't my objection. My rationale here is the biological purpose of sex is procreation. Obviously species evolved to find sex pleasureable because you needed that in a survival situation or it never would occur. Now that humans are no longer in a situation where they have to worry daily about getting eaten by predators sex has taken on a life of its own. Still, the basic purpose is procreation. If there's no chance of procreation then it makes little sense for there to be a biological drive to have sex. This is actually why most humans tend to find sex with young, attractive people more appealing. Those couplings tend to be more likely to bear healthy offspring. It's also why most humans aren't sexually attracted at all to their own sex. There's zero chance of bearing offspring. We can rationalize homosexuality all we want, but in the end I suspect it's caused by a genetic variation. I won't even say "abnormality" because that's not politically correct these days. Rather, it's just another random genetic mutation. That's also why I said we shouldn't treat homosexuals any differently. They are what they are, and they can't control who they're attracted to any more than me. In my case, it's actually almost nobody as I'm borderline asexual. I suppose that's another random genetic variation, perhaps with Nikola Tesla being the most famous example.

2. Evolutionary Biology does suggest that there's a benefit to couplings that don't produce offspring. In essence, the support provided by infertile couples allows the offspring of closely related members of a species to better succeed, thereby ensuring the survival of a given genetic line.
Obviously child-rearing support from other members of your clan is beneficial. Even elephants regularly do this. I'm saying there's no biological advantage of those infertile couples having sex. If they do or don't it doesn't affect the quality of the child-rearing.

How the hell would you know that a baker or photographer is going to have a hissy fit over your choice in marriage partner before you walked in and sampled a cake? Would you still believe that the same behavior is "provocative" if the baker in question felt as strongly that fat people shouldn't get married? Can you possibly see how a life of such discrimination during the planning of such a major event might cause a degree of indignity sufficient to result in legal action?
You don't know until you ask for one. My point though is if you're you're gay and baker A won't offer you a cake but baker B does then why continue to go to baker A just to prove a point? I tend to think if for no other reason than greed homosexuals will always find some business willing to serve them even if others don't. The color of their money is still green.

jtr -- so if you disapprove of homosexual relationships because they lack the sort of biological imperitive that heterosexual relationships do, then what are your thoughts on that same heterosexual couple actively trying to prevent any resulting pregnancies from their relations? Sex is sex is sex, as far as I'm concerned, and as long as no one's being hurt and everything is consensual I just can't find it in myself to give much of a damn about what's going on behind their closed doors. Personally I'm much more occupied with what (isn't) going on behind mine.
I couldn't care less what people do behind closed doors, or whether they have sex for procreation or recreation. In fact, I'm even fine with consensual sex between adults and those currently legally considered underage by law. Of course, that's within limits, meaning the younger partner still should be past puberty. I'm just saying I don't see the biological point of homosexuality. As I mentioned to Merc above, I suspect it's just another random genetic variation. Evolution is based on random genetic variations. Those with a survival advantage get widely propagated in the future. Those with none might still appear from time to time.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
One more thing about discrimination. Obviously if you're fat or Asian or black everyone can plainly see it, and hence potentially use it to discriminate against you. Stereotypes aside, there are rarely strongly visual indicators that someone is homosexual. The wedding cake example of course is an exception in that the baker can figure it out based on the names to be put on the cake. My point though is unless you come in broadcasting your sexuality to a business owner how would they even know, and therefore use it to discriminate against you? If I have any problem with homosexuals, it's that many wear their sexuality on their sleeve and define themselves by it. In truth, I have the same problem with any heterosexual who does the same. A person is a lot more than who they sleep with. Anyone who defines themselves mainly by that is shallow at best. I couldn't care less what someone prefers to screw, and I think it's an affront to polite society to broadcast this to a stranger running a business, or really to anyone except friends or family. I think there would be a lot fewer cases of discrimination if homosexuals didn't go around broadcasting the fact to everyone within earshot. Maybe in the end they get thrown out of a business not because they're gay, but because the business owner finds it offensive listening to someone say who they sleep with. I suspect that same business owner might throw a heterosexual person out the door too if they walked in and started broadcasting their particular sexual preference. Call me old fashioned, but I feel what happens in the bedroom should stay there.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
Further evidence that Indiana is a shame to the entire goddamned country:

http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus
That's disgusting. Unfortunately for some segment of the population, religious freedom means making laws which basically force even those who don't beleive in your religion to adhere to some of its tenets. It's no secret some large segment of the religious right would turn the US into a Christian theocracy if given the chance. Seriously, move out of Indiana. I can't think of a place more at odds with your value system.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Is it possible to present your services for only a subsection of the population? Not against a protected class I don't think. Not even the Mennonites and Amish could prevent it.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
It reeks of an April fools prank.

The thing about the smoke trap certainly does, but they actually do explain the firmware problem they had with their GPSes (they flashed consumer firmware on a Trucker GPS for the larger display). Gearheads seem divided about the amount of customization they did but that it basically checks out. They say they're putting footage on Youtube. Even if it's a prank, it's definitely a cool thought experiment.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Vegas is also one of the four "hot-spots" (w/ NY, LA, Phoenix) for meeting up with actual "adult film performers." :)

A ton of internet-based production is in Miami now, actually. The company that owns most of the "Tube" sites, Brazzers, does most of its business there.
Most strippers are just people. I think they have an interesting job and they usually have some cool/funny stories to tell if you get them to step away from the persona they have to have while they're working.

My thinking right now is really California or Seattle/Tacoma. My folks own a decent chunk of land in Tennessee, so that's why it's an option (I could also go to Central Illinois, where my family is from, but I'd probably looking at sustenance-level contracting work there). I'm not convinced that Alcoa/Oak Ridge National Labs are enough reason to move to their neck of the woods, but I suspect I'd get quite a bit more support for that sort of move than one that would put me on the far coast from them. Temperamentally, Seattle seems like a really good fit, but I'm not convinced my skill set would have a lot of value right next to Microsoft's HQ.

This is probably a year down the road for me anyway.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Is it possible to present your services for only a subsection of the population? Not against a protected class I don't think. Not even the Mennonites and Amish could prevent it.

One way to circumvent the legal requirement of public availability would be to present your services only to members of an organization that agrees to specific terms of service. I've been in places that use language like that to circumvent smoking bans. Of course, you're basically also broadcasting your intent to violate some generally non-negotiable aspect of the legal system, so I don't know how well that holds up in practice.
I guess you could also just put up a sign saying that you're going to be a douche to people if you think they're insufficiently heteronormative and just see how far that gets you.

jtr said:
If I have any problem with homosexuals, it's that many wear their sexuality on their sleeve and define themselves by it.


So let's talk about why some gay people do that.
In many cases, gay people have to completely set aside some deeply formative experiences in their lives because they lived in environments that don't allow for them to have those experiences until later in life. They don't get to go on dates when they're 15 like an average heterosexual. They have to wait until college or when they can move to a city with a decent population. Once they're there, two things become a factor: They move from complete sublimation of their interests to being absolutely surrounded by an affirming confirmation that things are OK and ALSO they want to broadcast their identity in large part so that they can meet others with appropriate moist holes and are not mistaken for the person they were previously forced to be. The newly-out are the ones who wear the rainbows and get the intertwining gender-symbol tattoos. It's a reaction to new-found freedom. They're making up for lost time.

In some cases, the sort of stereotypical mincing "light in the loafers" behavior (e.g. David Sedaris, David Rakoff, or the character Sal from Mad Men) was kind of a dog whistle that allowed for plausible deniability in mixed company. It's a kind of affectation that goes along well with art and theater departments being the sorts of places where a sensitive boy could go and be accepted and a certain level of fabulousness might be tolerable or even necessary.

Most queer people grow out of that sort of thing after they've found an identity that's based more on a relationship, a chosen family or a career, just as most young straight men eventually realize that being a worthwhile human means that they need to stop acting like they did when they were hanging out with the brothers at Sigma Nu. Those gay people are still going to be admiring whatever it is that catches their fancy and they're still going to want to talk about their significant others in just the same way that straight people talk about theirs, but the rainbow flags only come out for the Pride parade or when someone tells them how terrible they are for having a same-sex partner. There are also people who never grow out of it, just like there are people who never gave up being a bro or a hippy or think the US Constitution is somehow based in Biblical law. For the most part, even the people who are sympathetic to those folks will roll their eyes after a while.

Pride, by the way, is a celebration of the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, an set of acts of civil disobedience that ultimately forced authorities in New York City to acknowledge that gay people deserve human rights. Some gay people aren't overly fond of the present state of observance, but straight people have Mardi Gras and Halloween to serve the same basic social function and those are likewise as often an embarrassment.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
I took it upon myself to figure out taxes this year rather than pay someone else to do them. I went with TuboTax as a way to help me get through the process. One thing that took me a very long time to figure out was a way to get TurboTax to fill out a specific form I needed in the way I wanted. If anyone ever needs to figure out how to properly report a Backdoor Roth conversion in TurboTax, this website helped me get past a few issues. One thing I found very frustrating was that even though you can manually alter the forms (in this case was a 8606 form), TT wouldn't let me eFile because I made the changes manually. It would complain of errors because it didn't know how to account for the changes. I spent a lot of time trying to go through their "wizard" the right way to get it to fill out the form the way I needed. Once I did what that website described, it worked out fine. It was a small win for me but now I'm happy to not have to go to a tax person and pay them to do this for me again.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
I took it upon myself to figure out taxes this year rather than pay someone else to do them. I went with TuboTax as a way to help me get through the process. One thing that took me a very long time to figure out was a way to get TurboTax to fill out a specific form I needed in the way I wanted. If anyone ever needs to figure out how to properly report a Backdoor Roth conversion in TurboTax, this website helped me get past a few issues. One thing I found very frustrating was that even though you can manually alter the forms (in this case was a 8606 form), TT wouldn't let me eFile because I made the changes manually. It would complain of errors because it didn't know how to account for the changes. I spent a lot of time trying to go through their "wizard" the right way to get it to fill out the form the way I needed. Once I did what that website described, it worked out fine. It was a small win for me but now I'm happy to not have to go to a tax person and pay them to do this for me again.

Did the same thing with the same website as reference! I also found this website useful: http://whitecoatinvestor.com/backdoor-roth-ira-tutorial/

I had a small amount in a Traditional IRA that I rolled into my 401k before doing the backdoor/conversion to keep things simple. Investigating the mega back door roth for this year.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
What's the mega back door Roth for this year?

Edit I think I found a reference; reading about it now.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
I always do my taxes myself if for no other reason than I don't want a stranger knowing my business. Also, the hard part is generally already done because I keep track of expenses as they occur during the year with a spreadsheet. Making decent money is a mixed blessing. Now I owe out 5 figures in taxes. The good news is there's no penalty because my tax liability for 2013 was zero, and you only need to pay your tax liability for the previous year to avoid a penalty. The bad news is I will have to make quarterly payments for 2015 to avoid a penalty next year.

Advice for anyone working for themselves as an independent contractor-open a SEP IRA. That knocked $10K off my taxable income and I was still able to deduct another $6,500 off for a traditional IRA. Both things combined saved close to $5K in taxes.

Another piece of advice for people whose incomes might fluctuate wildly would be to convert traditional IRAs to Roths in years where you have little or no income. If you keep the conversion amount under the filing threshold you can convert and pay no taxes. This is a neat way of getting the tax break of a traditional IRA in years you really need it but eventually getting the tax-free advantages of a Roth IRA when you retire.

On another note, does anyone have any advice for getting out of that stupid "personal responsibility payment"? I can probably get out of it this year simply because I didn't have this consulting job when I would have had to buy health insurance, and hence thought I would be under the penalty threshold. I'm more worried about getting out of it in subsequent years. This gig is temporary. I don't plan to blow a good chunk on health insurance I don't want and won't use but I don't want to pay the penalty either. I suppose I could hope the Republican controlled Congress at least gets rid of the personal mandate even if they don't touch the rest of ObamaCare. Incidentally, that's about the only good thing I see having them as the majority party.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I do my own taxes and have for years. I use TaxAct. Getting a refund for the first time in years after owing year after year.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,536
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Last year just for grins I tried doing my own taxes before sending the paperwork to my accountant. He saved me at least double his fees compared to my math. For those with larger amounts of money on the line, you might consider a particularly good accountant a reasonable investment.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I think we had this discussion before, but I don't see how that's possible. You have income and deductions. Unless you're accountant is doing something shady or you're inept at doing your taxes I can't see how your accountant can get you a much larger refund than when you attempted it.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
I think we had this discussion before, but I don't see how that's possible. You have income and deductions. Unless you're accountant is doing something shady or you're inept at doing your taxes I can't see how your accountant can get you a much larger refund than when you attempted it.

I see stuff like this with my co-workers. They have relatively simple taxes, like most of us, but have an accountant guy that is more aggressive with declaring things like charitable donations, home office deductions, cell phones etc. etc. to game the system. They will even go through old returns and re-file them to get additional refunds for years past. They don't really understand what he/she is doing but they are happy because they have more $ in their pocket. It's great until you get audited and don't have the appropriate documentation to prove the deductions were real. Likelihood of being audited is lower these days but I don't want to risk it. I don't like giving my personal information to others, either, jtr.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
I agree with you sd/clocker. In my case I was inept at doing my taxes once they became more complicated with investments and stock option sales. Now that I've seen the work done by paying a personal tax preparer, I understood what I needed to do this year to make things work on my own. In my case this person wasn't making claims of finding me all kinds of money. She was trying to get things done correctly without flirting on the edge of what the tax law allows for in regards to deductions.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
I do my own taxes and have for years. I use TaxAct. Getting a refund for the first time in years after owing year after year.

I've used TaxAct Online for 3 years now. Takes about 1.5 hours. $20 for Fed & State Efile. Fed refund in 8 days, State in 6 days. :)

Last year just for grins I tried doing my own taxes before sending the paperwork to my accountant. He saved me at least double his fees compared to my math. For those with larger amounts of money on the line, you might consider a particularly good accountant a reasonable investment.

My brothers refund went from a couple thousand to $8-9000 refund with accountant. So if you have lots of complicated options, stock, IRAs, house sale, etc, you need a pro who understand the whole financial picture and can structure things to get you more of your money back.

I think we had this discussion before, but I don't see how that's possible. You have income and deductions. Unless you're accountant is doing something shady or you're inept at doing your taxes I can't see how your accountant can get you a much larger refund than when you attempted it.

I agree with you sd/clocker. In my case I was inept at doing my taxes once they became more complicated with investments and stock option sales. Now that I've seen the work done by paying a personal tax preparer, I understood what I needed to do this year to make things work on my own. In my case this person wasn't making claims of finding me all kinds of money. She was trying to get things done correctly without flirting on the edge of what the tax law allows for in regards to deductions.

On the other hand, I also agree SD and Handruin on people getting a HUGE increase in their refund. How does someone making $35000 a year get a $5000-7000 refund? Something fishy is going on.

Buyer Beware. Don't F with the GOV'T.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
If I didn't have an accountant I've worked with for years, I strongly suspect I could get away with just filing a 1040EZ and not report any of my contracting income. I don't really feel like risking it though.

I worked on an IRS agent's personal computer last Thursday. I saw Turbotax 2015 on his desktop. I thought that was funny.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
On the other hand, I also agree SD and Handruin on people getting a HUGE increase in their refund. How does someone making $35000 a year get a $5000-7000 refund? Something fishy is going on.
Especially when that $35,000 is regular wages. I might understand an accountant getting someone who files as an independent contractor a much lower tax liability by taking "liberties" with business deductions but if all you have are W2 wages there isn't much you can do beyond claim the usual deductions (mortgage interest, real estate taxes, education/medical expenses, maybe charity if you really have receipts). Either you have these deductions or you don't. If you don't, might as well just take the standard deduction.

On another note, it's always better to owe something than to get a refund, provided you don't owe so much that you have to pay penalties. A large tax refund represents a large tax-free loan to the government.
 
Top