It is a little more complicated than that. The way b&m Stores work is that for each location they determine what tax jurisdictions apply to them and that individual store applies those taxes to each purchase at that location. Retail software is designed that way. An internet business can not apply that same system unless there was a flat tax. You would have to do a zip code to tax jurisdiction match for every single purchase which is not as easy as it sounds. It requires a lot of research and in the end, even if you contract it out, you would have to do that on the fly on the web page. That would get expensive enough, but the problem is that your biggest issue would actually be remitting all of those taxes. Take a mid sized internet business like www.thinkgeek.com... do you think they have the resources in place to keep track of what remittances need to be sent where and get them all out?
Internet sales tax is a poison pill that will damn near kill internet businesses. It is not the increased prices that would hurt them but rather keeping track of what to pay to whom. There are over 25,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US alone. I live in the City of Fairfax in Virginia. They have their own 1.5% sales tax. If internet taxing was put into place some one would have to keep track of what tax is applicable to what zip code, be able to assess that for every customer upfront, and then remit possibly 25,000 different payments every month. This could dramatically increase the overhead of larger internet businesses like Amazon, erasing any savings on overhead compared to brick and mortar competitors. For a smaller internet business like Kens Solar, they just simply would shut down because the cost of keeping up with the different tax codes would kill any profits.
The only way internet sales taxes are workable is if the Feds set a flat rate across the board and designated who could collect. If the flat rate was 5% they would need to designate how much went to each interested party (Fed, State, County, City). They would also need to supply a more streamline remittance process because no small company could process or keep track of where their tax collections needed to go. My guess is Verisign may be the company to handle something like that.
No bombs were found, but if you were the bank manager and an unidentified voice on the phone said that a bomb would blow up if money was not wired with in five minutes or if anyone tried to leave what would you do?
You could ignore it yes, most likely false. But what if its not? Its easy to say they are idiots when your not in their positions.
Your reaction can really only be tested when you are in that position. I know of plenty of Marines who pissed themselves the first time a shot was fired in their direction while in Iraq. How many of them do you think would have considered it a possibility before it actually happened?
Well this is a case of the feds using denying funding if the states don't go along.
Financial incentives create de facto federal purchase age of 21. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 states that revenue will be withheld from states that allow the purchase of alcohol to anyone under the age of 21. Some states do not allow those under the legal drinking age to be present in liquor stores or in bars (usually, the difference between a bar and a restaurant is whether food is being served). Contrary to popular belief, since National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, few states specifically prohibit minors' consumption of alcohol in private settings (an exception includes Connecticut). In some cases or states, alcohol permits can be purchased at a cost to the parent or legal guardian. New York permits those under twenty-one to drink in restaurants provided that they are with a parent or guardian, the alcohol is poured (if applicable) by the parent or guardian, the parent or guardian hands the drink to the minor person, and the minor person is not seated at the bar. As of 2006, 20 states do not specifically ban underage consumption and an additional 15 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. [3]
Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage possession laws. [4]
Underage purchase of alcohol, though illegal in all fifty states, is not a federal offense, although restrictions on highway funding for states that allow it make it illegal federally de facto. See underage drinking in America. Additionally, exceptions are such as on certain military installations such as Fort Bliss, Texas. On Fort Bliss, the Commanding General lowered the age to 18 to subside the number of soldiers traveling to nearby Juarez, Mexico to drink legally there.
The power to regulate drinking age is not given to the Congress but they gave themselves that power through their governance of interstate commerce and the funding of those roads. Probably of questionable constitutionality, but they did it. It is kind of like passing a law that the army will not protect any state that does not pass X law.
Perhaps you did not read the excerpt from the constitution, I will repost the first line for you.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It is not compelling states to follow Federal Law through funding withholding. States are constitutionally bound to adhere to federal law. It is part of the deal for a state to join the union, they are required to relinquish powers to the federal government.
Funding is withheld when the feds want the states to do something but the actual topic is something that the constitution specifically delineates the jurisdiction to the states. Education, roads (internal infrastructure), etc. The states don't have to comply, but the feds don't need to give them money.
Federal laws trump State laws. There are cases, such as your drinking example, where states are able to set higher standards, but never lower. This is not an apples to apples comparison though. This law is not about a minimum age or a maximum speed limit. This is defining who is protected and who is not. In this case the feds are delineating the standard of what constitutes a journalist protected by these shield laws. In this case, you can't meet both the federal standard, which is journalist or not, and still meet a different state standard which may not completely mesh up. If the feds say your a journalist, Arkansas can not say you are not. If the feds say you are not a journalist protected, Washington can not say you are protected.
States have latitude in setting a different standard when the law sets a degree, such as speed or age. When it is a simple yes or no, the federal law is the only law.
Better plan,
Record static at a variety of lengths and then make copies with the names of songs and movies. When the MafIAA comes at you with a lawsuit you counter sue them for downloading your static and violating your privacy and malicious prosecution. At the very least you may annoy the crap out of them when they have downloaded the fifteenth version of the static in their hunt for pirates.
They did assume special "high oil content" algae breeds that are difficult to grow/maintain without less "efficient" strains taking over though
The companies that I refered to are using the plastic bags for exactly this reason. They can control the population so that no unwanted varieties make it in.
This is actually very practical. Popular Science just ran an article on algae fuel in their print edition last month, although I can't find it on their website.
Regardless, many companies are experimenting with this and it is much more efficient then corn or any other sort of biofuel production. As for the 34,000 square kilometers, you don't need ponds to do it. Many companies are using clear plastic bags to do it. Think zip-lock bags. The algae only needs water, sunlight, and CO2 to reproduce, and fast. This process can take place anywhere, even in non-desirable desert lands that get plenty of sunlight. The land is cheap, not in competition with cities and other industries because quite frankly, it is a desert. I imagine that once this becomes viable (still in the research and refinement stages) Arizona and New Mexico will have a major industry popping up.
This is actually very practical. Popular Science just ran an article on algae fuel in their print edition last month, although I can't find it on their website.
Regardless, many companies are experimenting with this and it is much more efficient then corn or any other sort of biofuel production. As for the 34,000 square kilometers, you don't need ponds to do it. Many companies are using clear plastic bags to do it. Think zip-lock bags. The algae only needs water, sunlight, and CO2 to reproduce, and fast. This process can take place anywhere, even in non-desirable desert lands that get plenty of sunlight. The land is cheap, not in competition with cities and other industries because quite frankly, it is a desert. I imagine that once this becomes viable (still in the research and refinement stages) Arizona and New Mexico will have a major industry popping up.
There is a much more important aspect here than precedent. This is a "screw you RIAA/MPAA" card that will hurt badly. This makes going after people more expensive than it is worth because of "Rule 68. Offer of Judgment".
This person offered the RIAA $300, possibly a discounted but reasonable amount for what this person downloaded. How much did the RIAA spend to get that $300? Between IT experts and legal fees my guess is in the area of $20k. Really worth it huh?
This means that any action brought by the RIAA can be deflected with a reasonable offer for damages with in 10 days of the trial. They don't want to risk having to pay the court costs from that point out. In most cases the "offenders" have not downloaded enough music to make it worthwhile to file suit.
Actually, Tolkien himself said that LOTR was rooted in Catholicism. He was a devout Catholic and the story started to reflect those beliefs. The two most poignant examples are the three forms of Jesus and the healing done by Arragon.
Three forms: 1. Jesus the Teacher - Gandalf 2. Jesus the Kind - Arragon 3. Jesus the Sacrifice - Frodo
Remember the line from Return of the King, "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"... think of just a couple bible stories...
I am not in any way religious so this is not a tainted point, it is just the truth.
this is flaimbait, please some one mod it down.
If it sucked so much you would not have wasted your time writing here. Your just a troll.
Personally, I think the show is great. Nothing beats the episode where they liberate New Caprica. Galactica intentionally free falling to launch fighters and jumping out at the last minute, priceless!
I find this incredibly interesting the class warfare going on in Illinois. Video games are an item that falls into the discretionary spending category. You have extra money and you get the new game for your kid. The people who buy these games, at least for the most part, have the money to cover the necessities in life and then some. So in order to protect these reasonably well off people you are going to take money away from the downtrodden and underprivileged?
"We need to protect all of these suburban kids from what they see in their video games. But where do we get the money for the fight? Oh, those poor kids don't need to eat this month..."
God bless the yuppies
If the terrorists succeeded in killing Bush we would have an interesting series of events.
First most of the world, including the US would be happy (look at his approval ratings)
Then, we would realize that Chaney is our new President, and the entire world would cringe...
Considering who's being sued....The only thing coming to mind is that old "Bambi meets Godzilla" cartoon, except with the foot slamming down 3 times, each time harder than the last.
Hey, I will agree that some of these larger companies have actively pushed some diplorable business ethics in the past. Does that mean that we should bombard them with frivilous law suites?
Is it just me or does this speak so clearly to the culture we have developed in the US? The idea that you can only get ahead by suing the pants off of some corporation. It just sounds like this corporation exists only to gather every patent it can get it's hands on and lies in wait for a large company to blunder so they can get rich.
Do you really think that "scalpers" are going to buy out flights on the gamble that they can sell the seats marked up? Not all flights sell out. They would lose money in the end, especially when some one could just wait for a slightly less convenient flight in order to avoid the scalpers doubled price.
Why should airlines be able to do what they want with their private property (planes), but a customer who has bought private property from the airline (a ticket) is not allowed to do so?
Yeah, looks like I am going to have to break this down Barny style for you.
A ticket (piece of paper) is private property, yes you are right there. You are welcome to sell/give that ticket (piece of paper) to another person. That person now owns the piece of paper.
What the ticket represents though is an agreement between the airline and a specific individual to provide a service. That service has no physical properties and is not private property. The agreement you enter into with the airline does not allow that service to be transfed to a third party. This is also written on the ticket representing your entitlement to service.
Some services you may subcontract out and sell to another person, such as the least on an appartment. This however is not leagal if the original lease/contract you entered into states that it is prohibited. In this case, as with the service of travel provided by the airline, you are stuck with the lease and are not legally allowed to sell it to a third party.
Airlines are privately held companies. They are heavily regulated by the government due to the nature of airplanes and the damage they can do. Regardless, they are a private industry. As a private industry they are in the business of making money (or at least trying).
By requiring ID they are forcing final sales of airline tickets. If tickets were transferable or resalable the airlines would lose money because of the ability to buy tickets second hand.
There does not have to be a law requiring ID's for flight. It is a policy of the Airline just as so many stores have a policy of requiring ID for a return. Do you "have" to present ID, no. You will not be arrested for failing to produce ID for a flight. Will you be allowed on the flight, no. They don't have to let you on the flight for failing to comply with the airlines policy.
If you don't like it don't fly. This is not akin to presenting ID randomly at any time while driving or walking. We are talking about purchasing a service from a private company.
My only gripe with this is the misinformation they are trying to diseminate. The airlines feel that their requirement for ID is lent authority by claiming it is a law or policy of the TSA. Call it what it is, a money making policy. Don't try to legitimize yourself in the publics eyes by blaming some one else.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called wire fraud.
It is a little more complicated than that. The way b&m Stores work is that for each location they determine what tax jurisdictions apply to them and that individual store applies those taxes to each purchase at that location. Retail software is designed that way. An internet business can not apply that same system unless there was a flat tax. You would have to do a zip code to tax jurisdiction match for every single purchase which is not as easy as it sounds. It requires a lot of research and in the end, even if you contract it out, you would have to do that on the fly on the web page. That would get expensive enough, but the problem is that your biggest issue would actually be remitting all of those taxes. Take a mid sized internet business like www.thinkgeek.com... do you think they have the resources in place to keep track of what remittances need to be sent where and get them all out?
Internet sales tax is a poison pill that will damn near kill internet businesses. It is not the increased prices that would hurt them but rather keeping track of what to pay to whom. There are over 25,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US alone. I live in the City of Fairfax in Virginia. They have their own 1.5% sales tax. If internet taxing was put into place some one would have to keep track of what tax is applicable to what zip code, be able to assess that for every customer upfront, and then remit possibly 25,000 different payments every month. This could dramatically increase the overhead of larger internet businesses like Amazon, erasing any savings on overhead compared to brick and mortar competitors. For a smaller internet business like Kens Solar, they just simply would shut down because the cost of keeping up with the different tax codes would kill any profits.
The only way internet sales taxes are workable is if the Feds set a flat rate across the board and designated who could collect. If the flat rate was 5% they would need to designate how much went to each interested party (Fed, State, County, City). They would also need to supply a more streamline remittance process because no small company could process or keep track of where their tax collections needed to go. My guess is Verisign may be the company to handle something like that.
No bombs were found, but if you were the bank manager and an unidentified voice on the phone said that a bomb would blow up if money was not wired with in five minutes or if anyone tried to leave what would you do?
You could ignore it yes, most likely false. But what if its not? Its easy to say they are idiots when your not in their positions.
Your reaction can really only be tested when you are in that position. I know of plenty of Marines who pissed themselves the first time a shot was fired in their direction while in Iraq. How many of them do you think would have considered it a possibility before it actually happened?
Why does the word 'Orbo' come to mind?
The power to regulate drinking age is not given to the Congress but they gave themselves that power through their governance of interstate commerce and the funding of those roads. Probably of questionable constitutionality, but they did it. It is kind of like passing a law that the army will not protect any state that does not pass X law.
It is not compelling states to follow Federal Law through funding withholding. States are constitutionally bound to adhere to federal law. It is part of the deal for a state to join the union, they are required to relinquish powers to the federal government.
Funding is withheld when the feds want the states to do something but the actual topic is something that the constitution specifically delineates the jurisdiction to the states. Education, roads (internal infrastructure), etc. The states don't have to comply, but the feds don't need to give them money.
Federal laws trump State laws. There are cases, such as your drinking example, where states are able to set higher standards, but never lower. This is not an apples to apples comparison though. This law is not about a minimum age or a maximum speed limit. This is defining who is protected and who is not. In this case the feds are delineating the standard of what constitutes a journalist protected by these shield laws. In this case, you can't meet both the federal standard, which is journalist or not, and still meet a different state standard which may not completely mesh up. If the feds say your a journalist, Arkansas can not say you are not. If the feds say you are not a journalist protected, Washington can not say you are protected. States have latitude in setting a different standard when the law sets a degree, such as speed or age. When it is a simple yes or no, the federal law is the only law.
Mod this up funny please. That was a /. classic right there.
Better plan, Record static at a variety of lengths and then make copies with the names of songs and movies. When the MafIAA comes at you with a lawsuit you counter sue them for downloading your static and violating your privacy and malicious prosecution. At the very least you may annoy the crap out of them when they have downloaded the fifteenth version of the static in their hunt for pirates.
This is actually very practical. Popular Science just ran an article on algae fuel in their print edition last month, although I can't find it on their website.
Regardless, many companies are experimenting with this and it is much more efficient then corn or any other sort of biofuel production. As for the 34,000 square kilometers, you don't need ponds to do it. Many companies are using clear plastic bags to do it. Think zip-lock bags. The algae only needs water, sunlight, and CO2 to reproduce, and fast. This process can take place anywhere, even in non-desirable desert lands that get plenty of sunlight. The land is cheap, not in competition with cities and other industries because quite frankly, it is a desert. I imagine that once this becomes viable (still in the research and refinement stages) Arizona and New Mexico will have a major industry popping up.
This is actually very practical. Popular Science just ran an article on algae fuel in their print edition last month, although I can't find it on their website. Regardless, many companies are experimenting with this and it is much more efficient then corn or any other sort of biofuel production. As for the 34,000 square kilometers, you don't need ponds to do it. Many companies are using clear plastic bags to do it. Think zip-lock bags. The algae only needs water, sunlight, and CO2 to reproduce, and fast. This process can take place anywhere, even in non-desirable desert lands that get plenty of sunlight. The land is cheap, not in competition with cities and other industries because quite frankly, it is a desert. I imagine that once this becomes viable (still in the research and refinement stages) Arizona and New Mexico will have a major industry popping up.
There is a much more important aspect here than precedent. This is a "screw you RIAA/MPAA" card that will hurt badly. This makes going after people more expensive than it is worth because of "Rule 68. Offer of Judgment". This person offered the RIAA $300, possibly a discounted but reasonable amount for what this person downloaded. How much did the RIAA spend to get that $300? Between IT experts and legal fees my guess is in the area of $20k. Really worth it huh? This means that any action brought by the RIAA can be deflected with a reasonable offer for damages with in 10 days of the trial. They don't want to risk having to pay the court costs from that point out. In most cases the "offenders" have not downloaded enough music to make it worthwhile to file suit.
Actually, Tolkien himself said that LOTR was rooted in Catholicism. He was a devout Catholic and the story started to reflect those beliefs. The two most poignant examples are the three forms of Jesus and the healing done by Arragon.
Three forms:
1. Jesus the Teacher - Gandalf
2. Jesus the Kind - Arragon
3. Jesus the Sacrifice - Frodo
Remember the line from Return of the King, "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"... think of just a couple bible stories...
I am not in any way religious so this is not a tainted point, it is just the truth.
this is flaimbait, please some one mod it down. If it sucked so much you would not have wasted your time writing here. Your just a troll. Personally, I think the show is great. Nothing beats the episode where they liberate New Caprica. Galactica intentionally free falling to launch fighters and jumping out at the last minute, priceless!
I find this incredibly interesting the class warfare going on in Illinois. Video games are an item that falls into the discretionary spending category. You have extra money and you get the new game for your kid. The people who buy these games, at least for the most part, have the money to cover the necessities in life and then some. So in order to protect these reasonably well off people you are going to take money away from the downtrodden and underprivileged? "We need to protect all of these suburban kids from what they see in their video games. But where do we get the money for the fight? Oh, those poor kids don't need to eat this month..." God bless the yuppies
If the terrorists succeeded in killing Bush we would have an interesting series of events. First most of the world, including the US would be happy (look at his approval ratings) Then, we would realize that Chaney is our new President, and the entire world would cringe...
You don't think this is a cultural norm? http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/19/ 1731210
Want me to dig up more articles? We have plenty...
Is it just me or does this speak so clearly to the culture we have developed in the US? The idea that you can only get ahead by suing the pants off of some corporation. It just sounds like this corporation exists only to gather every patent it can get it's hands on and lies in wait for a large company to blunder so they can get rich.
Do you really think that "scalpers" are going to buy out flights on the gamble that they can sell the seats marked up? Not all flights sell out. They would lose money in the end, especially when some one could just wait for a slightly less convenient flight in order to avoid the scalpers doubled price.
Why should airlines be able to do what they want with their private property (planes), but a customer who has bought private property from the airline (a ticket) is not allowed to do so?
Yeah, looks like I am going to have to break this down Barny style for you.
A ticket (piece of paper) is private property, yes you are right there. You are welcome to sell/give that ticket (piece of paper) to another person. That person now owns the piece of paper.
What the ticket represents though is an agreement between the airline and a specific individual to provide a service. That service has no physical properties and is not private property. The agreement you enter into with the airline does not allow that service to be transfed to a third party. This is also written on the ticket representing your entitlement to service.
Some services you may subcontract out and sell to another person, such as the least on an appartment. This however is not leagal if the original lease/contract you entered into states that it is prohibited. In this case, as with the service of travel provided by the airline, you are stuck with the lease and are not legally allowed to sell it to a third party.
Airlines are privately held companies. They are heavily regulated by the government due to the nature of airplanes and the damage they can do. Regardless, they are a private industry. As a private industry they are in the business of making money (or at least trying).
By requiring ID they are forcing final sales of airline tickets. If tickets were transferable or resalable the airlines would lose money because of the ability to buy tickets second hand.
There does not have to be a law requiring ID's for flight. It is a policy of the Airline just as so many stores have a policy of requiring ID for a return. Do you "have" to present ID, no. You will not be arrested for failing to produce ID for a flight. Will you be allowed on the flight, no. They don't have to let you on the flight for failing to comply with the airlines policy.
If you don't like it don't fly. This is not akin to presenting ID randomly at any time while driving or walking. We are talking about purchasing a service from a private company.
My only gripe with this is the misinformation they are trying to diseminate. The airlines feel that their requirement for ID is lent authority by claiming it is a law or policy of the TSA. Call it what it is, a money making policy. Don't try to legitimize yourself in the publics eyes by blaming some one else.