Why target only those evade their taxes by renouncing their citizenship? Shouldn't these politicians take a good look at themselves? How many of them use every loophole (or sneaky, illegal tactic) they can find to evade their taxes? These people are not above reproach. Most, if not all, are just as guilty of evading their taxes.
Tax avoidance is NOT tax evasion. There is a big difference between the two.
When you buy a piece a software (or "license it", if you will), you buy it as is, defects and all - typically with no warranty or merchantability for any particular purpose. From that standpoint, consider yourself lucky if you get someone to provide an update at no charge. Besides which - how long is a manufacturer supposed to be "on the hook" for supporting an old version? And a "0.01" version difference IS an old version. Frankly, I'm amazed at companies continuing to provide updates for older stuff. On the other hand - it is GOOD BUSINESS to do so, to at least some degree. What better way to bring on a unnecessary (even if meritless) lawsuit, than to get popped for not fixing known security issues, even in old software. Given the general uselessness of juries, you're just ripe for trouble. But failing to do good business (generally) isn't "wrong" from some kind of moral perspective....it is (often) just not very smart.
You can do whatever you want. But companies are also free to make decisions about you concerning what you do in your personal life - as well they should.
Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me.
You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine.
You can ask these sorts of questions. The law does not prohibit asking. It prohibits using the information in making a hiring decision. Because it is VERY difficult to support the claim that although you asked about , but did not factor that into your decision-making, smart employers have a POLICY against asking such things - but it's not illegal.
Or no account at all.
I have no Facebook, Google, MySpace, FourSquare, Instagram, or other "social media" account. Don't want or need one either. If I want to "share something" with a "friend" I'll just use good ole e-mail.
Yeah...you're assuming that is worth doing. Big fucking assumption.
I could not possibly care less about "pop culture" when it largely consists of bullshit.
FWIW, I'll never a Facebook or twitter account either - I don't care if that makes me a "social media" luddite.
They'd have to put something on compelling enough for me to pay to watch it - which isn't really likely.
I got rid of my cable tv service some time ago. The only thing we watch at home is Netflix, and even that is pretty marginal considering the $130/month I have to pay for cable modem service with sufficient bandwidth & usage.
Oh come on. By what magic force should a company charge the same for a product (accounting for PPP) throughout the world?
Maybe companies charge more in certain parts of the world simply because the people living there WILL PAY MORE!
I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that medicines cost less throughout the world than they do in the U.S. (for various reasons - none of which are important). I'm sure that no one in places such Australia would offer to pony up more money if they learned their (fill in drug name of choice here) costs a lot less than it does in the U.S.
If you're willing to buy (whatever) for twice the price of your neighbor, you can't really blame me for selling it to you at that price.
The only thing I use iTunes for us to connect to streaming radio stations to listen to the news and related programs. It works pretty well for that. It works well enough that I don't use VLC, which I also have, and which could also do the job.
I'm SO glad I don't have any kind of "iDevice" - I hope this nasty trend toward morphing OS X into iOS doesn't continue. If it does, I might have to finally switch to Windows ):
TFA is not about "illegal copies" of a book. It's about copies published by the copyright owner, legally purchased, and then SOLD by the owner of the books. Big difference from "illegal copies".
Cars already have a "break override system" - it's called the gear shifter. If the vehicle begins racing out of control, simply moving the shift to the "N" position cuts the engine off from the transmission, which will result in the vehicle coasting to a stop (unless it hits something first).
On some vehicles, this can also be achieved by pushing in the clutch.
May Van Halen should be sued - as VH wrote and sold millions of copies of a song glorifying suicide by jumping. Surely this poor fellow must have been influenced by the popularity of the song.
Interesting train of logic but I would suggest that it is fatally flawed.
I don't care what your pre-conceptions are, science is supposed to embrace and seriously consider all theories. Just because you cannot prove Intelligent Design, or creationism, or whatever other theory comes up....
Actually, that is not the case at all.
Science deals with the provable, or potentially provable within certain, reasonable parameters. It does NOT deal with anything someone can come up with.
For example, suppose I have a theory that the entire universe and time itself was created by a purple creature with a bucktooth and a sore ass from taking a pounding the night before from his spotted blue friend. That is not a scientific theory. It is not provable. Now, I may take it as a matter of FAITH that this is what happened - and I may or may not be right. But I shouldn't be trying to prove I'm right using the scientific method - nor should you represent there is any kind of (scientific) controversy just because you can get some people to agree with you - even if they happen to be scientists. Just because a scientist thinks something doesn't make that something necessarily scientific.
Bottom line: if you post a price, and people can't pay it because of your policy, you are committing fraud.
You can choose to underpay. It's called "shoplifting"
And your logic is flawed.
10 people could come in the store with $100 bills to buy $1 items. My policy is not to keep $1000 of change on-hand, so I could never make change for all of them. That's fraud? Please.
On a similar note - if a place is "cash only" and someone can't pay because they only have a card, that's fraud? Again, no way.
Now, defraulding people by stealing this bit of money will most certainly be illegal..
It's not defrauding. Hey, if I say, "we don't stock pennies - you can pay with exact change or donate the difference if you like" and you choose to "overpay" by a few cents, that's your choice. I'm under no obligation to make change for you.
I use cash every day. I don't have a debit/ATM card. I do have a credit card, but I only use it for "in person" transactions at gas pumps, for large purchases, and instances where I don't happen to have enough cash on me (I don't buy much, so it's not usually an issue). Generally speaking, if a transaction is under $40 or so, I'm paying with cash. Taking a look right now - my wallet has $152.....and no pennies.
As an owner of a retail location - I find it really annoying that people use cards for the most minute of transactions. I mean, damn - is it expecting too much for you to pay for that $1 item with cash?
On a related note - we don't keep pennies in our drawer. We don't round the transaction, nor do we give out pennies. If we "owe" someone pennies, we just ignore it. No one every says anything. We also don't accept pennies, generally speaking. If we do get a couple of them, we just toss them in the trash.
Not a big fan of dollar bills either - the pennies of the currency world. Dollar coins make so much more sense.
We DO stock our drawer with $2 bills, dollar coins and half dollar coins.
I don't often side with the Church, but I would LOOOVVVEE to see some Catholics or Hindus or someone file copyright infringement against medicine companies on behalf of God/Creator Spirit/what-have-you.
Any such lawsuit would be dismissed on lack of standing to file such a suit. One would need to have some acceptable proof of power attorney provided by said supernatural sky friend.
the first merchant misrepresents the quality of his products in a trade and gets shot through the head.
But THAT is the free market at work!
In any case, whether or not one believes in free markets - I simply don't think that this is an issue that should be regulated by government. If companies produce shitty products, and other companies don't want to compete by producing non-shitty products, and customers encourage this behaviour by continuing to buy shitty products, everyone is getting one they deserve. Government should stay out of it, and focus on what it SHOULD be doing, such as building infrastructure, providing for national defense and not a whole lot else.
Slashdot Mirror
Why target only those evade their taxes by renouncing their citizenship? Shouldn't these politicians take a good look at themselves? How many of them use every loophole (or sneaky, illegal tactic) they can find to evade their taxes? These people are not above reproach. Most, if not all, are just as guilty of evading their taxes.
Tax avoidance is NOT tax evasion. There is a big difference between the two.
To do what? Download the pirated copies so they don't have to watch the unskippable content?
Yep. Or use Netflix, or whatever.
Doesn't bother me - I gave up on DVDs in 2009. I got tired of the skipping DVDs and rude service at Blockbuster. Went to Netflix, haven't looked back.
When you buy a piece a software (or "license it", if you will), you buy it as is, defects and all - typically with no warranty or merchantability for any particular purpose. From that standpoint, consider yourself lucky if you get someone to provide an update at no charge. Besides which - how long is a manufacturer supposed to be "on the hook" for supporting an old version? And a "0.01" version difference IS an old version. Frankly, I'm amazed at companies continuing to provide updates for older stuff. On the other hand - it is GOOD BUSINESS to do so, to at least some degree. What better way to bring on a unnecessary (even if meritless) lawsuit, than to get popped for not fixing known security issues, even in old software. Given the general uselessness of juries, you're just ripe for trouble. But failing to do good business (generally) isn't "wrong" from some kind of moral perspective....it is (often) just not very smart.
You can do whatever you want. But companies are also free to make decisions about you concerning what you do in your personal life - as well they should. Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me. You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine.
You can ask these sorts of questions. The law does not prohibit asking. It prohibits using the information in making a hiring decision. Because it is VERY difficult to support the claim that although you asked about , but did not factor that into your decision-making, smart employers have a POLICY against asking such things - but it's not illegal.
Or no account at all. I have no Facebook, Google, MySpace, FourSquare, Instagram, or other "social media" account. Don't want or need one either. If I want to "share something" with a "friend" I'll just use good ole e-mail.
The truth doesn't need to be pleasant to be informative.
The truth spoken rudely does not increase its validity. So why not be civil? If nothing else, it adds credibility.
Yeah...you're assuming that is worth doing. Big fucking assumption. I could not possibly care less about "pop culture" when it largely consists of bullshit. FWIW, I'll never a Facebook or twitter account either - I don't care if that makes me a "social media" luddite.
They'd have to put something on compelling enough for me to pay to watch it - which isn't really likely. I got rid of my cable tv service some time ago. The only thing we watch at home is Netflix, and even that is pretty marginal considering the $130/month I have to pay for cable modem service with sufficient bandwidth & usage.
Oh come on. By what magic force should a company charge the same for a product (accounting for PPP) throughout the world? Maybe companies charge more in certain parts of the world simply because the people living there WILL PAY MORE! I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that medicines cost less throughout the world than they do in the U.S. (for various reasons - none of which are important). I'm sure that no one in places such Australia would offer to pony up more money if they learned their (fill in drug name of choice here) costs a lot less than it does in the U.S. If you're willing to buy (whatever) for twice the price of your neighbor, you can't really blame me for selling it to you at that price.
The only thing I use iTunes for us to connect to streaming radio stations to listen to the news and related programs. It works pretty well for that. It works well enough that I don't use VLC, which I also have, and which could also do the job. I'm SO glad I don't have any kind of "iDevice" - I hope this nasty trend toward morphing OS X into iOS doesn't continue. If it does, I might have to finally switch to Windows ):
Even if he has unmet tax liability, that is not the issue being raised in this case.
TFA is not about "illegal copies" of a book. It's about copies published by the copyright owner, legally purchased, and then SOLD by the owner of the books. Big difference from "illegal copies".
Cars already have a "break override system" - it's called the gear shifter. If the vehicle begins racing out of control, simply moving the shift to the "N" position cuts the engine off from the transmission, which will result in the vehicle coasting to a stop (unless it hits something first). On some vehicles, this can also be achieved by pushing in the clutch.
May Van Halen should be sued - as VH wrote and sold millions of copies of a song glorifying suicide by jumping. Surely this poor fellow must have been influenced by the popularity of the song.
Interesting train of logic but I would suggest that it is fatally flawed.
I don't care what your pre-conceptions are, science is supposed to embrace and seriously consider all theories. Just because you cannot prove Intelligent Design, or creationism, or whatever other theory comes up ....
Actually, that is not the case at all. Science deals with the provable, or potentially provable within certain, reasonable parameters. It does NOT deal with anything someone can come up with. For example, suppose I have a theory that the entire universe and time itself was created by a purple creature with a bucktooth and a sore ass from taking a pounding the night before from his spotted blue friend. That is not a scientific theory. It is not provable. Now, I may take it as a matter of FAITH that this is what happened - and I may or may not be right. But I shouldn't be trying to prove I'm right using the scientific method - nor should you represent there is any kind of (scientific) controversy just because you can get some people to agree with you - even if they happen to be scientists. Just because a scientist thinks something doesn't make that something necessarily scientific.
..you want to bring copyright into education, you want to make money off of education? Fuck you.
So....everyone involved in the education industry should be working for free? Really?
They don't want them either.
Why can't I choose to under pay?
Bottom line: if you post a price, and people can't pay it because of your policy, you are committing fraud.
You can choose to underpay. It's called "shoplifting" And your logic is flawed. 10 people could come in the store with $100 bills to buy $1 items. My policy is not to keep $1000 of change on-hand, so I could never make change for all of them. That's fraud? Please. On a similar note - if a place is "cash only" and someone can't pay because they only have a card, that's fraud? Again, no way.
Now, defraulding people by stealing this bit of money will most certainly be illegal. .
It's not defrauding. Hey, if I say, "we don't stock pennies - you can pay with exact change or donate the difference if you like" and you choose to "overpay" by a few cents, that's your choice. I'm under no obligation to make change for you.
I use cash maybe once a month. MAYBE.
I use cash every day. I don't have a debit/ATM card. I do have a credit card, but I only use it for "in person" transactions at gas pumps, for large purchases, and instances where I don't happen to have enough cash on me (I don't buy much, so it's not usually an issue). Generally speaking, if a transaction is under $40 or so, I'm paying with cash. Taking a look right now - my wallet has $152.....and no pennies. As an owner of a retail location - I find it really annoying that people use cards for the most minute of transactions. I mean, damn - is it expecting too much for you to pay for that $1 item with cash? On a related note - we don't keep pennies in our drawer. We don't round the transaction, nor do we give out pennies. If we "owe" someone pennies, we just ignore it. No one every says anything. We also don't accept pennies, generally speaking. If we do get a couple of them, we just toss them in the trash. Not a big fan of dollar bills either - the pennies of the currency world. Dollar coins make so much more sense. We DO stock our drawer with $2 bills, dollar coins and half dollar coins.
They're constantly having to break open new rolls of coins to re-fill the register drawers with otherwise.
Oh yeah - and what a burden that is.
Your understanding of "theory" when applied to a scientific context is no better than that of the creationists.
I don't often side with the Church, but I would LOOOVVVEE to see some Catholics or Hindus or someone file copyright infringement against medicine companies on behalf of God/Creator Spirit/what-have-you.
Any such lawsuit would be dismissed on lack of standing to file such a suit. One would need to have some acceptable proof of power attorney provided by said supernatural sky friend.
the first merchant misrepresents the quality of his products in a trade and gets shot through the head.
But THAT is the free market at work! In any case, whether or not one believes in free markets - I simply don't think that this is an issue that should be regulated by government. If companies produce shitty products, and other companies don't want to compete by producing non-shitty products, and customers encourage this behaviour by continuing to buy shitty products, everyone is getting one they deserve. Government should stay out of it, and focus on what it SHOULD be doing, such as building infrastructure, providing for national defense and not a whole lot else.