They don't. What's SUPPOSED to happen is the buyer pays use tax in his/her home state. Really.
About 0% of people do so.
Since even the US Gov't realizes it isn't practical to go after the large majority of it's population they're shifting the burdon (or trying to) to those selling instead. Retailers are jumping onboard pointing at amazon and crying "no fair no fair no fair." Of course 'fair' for them is at the expense of...drumroll...the consumer of course. I'd totally continue to shop at a retailer that lobbied to make things from their competitors cost me more. Or not.
It would be better if we had a practical tax system instead of the nickel and dime charge this, deduct that, but charge this and don't deduct that while writing off this other unrelated thing and claiming a tax credit for a goat herding initiative in Somalia.
I love this (mis)quote. His lawyers are going to eat it up assuming he isn't smart enough to eat a gun on his own. You aren't given Miranda rights, they're just there. That's why they call it 'reading him his rights'. It's simply informing the individual.
Not that anything justified what he (likely) did but our legal system still pegs him as innocent until proven guilty. Oh wait, there's an exemption for that too I'm sure. Our legal system has truly become a mockery of itself.
For the longest time that was EXACTLY the case with cable in many areas. Same with phone service. It wasn't pretty...and most of what's come from bringing in 'competition' is an alternate option for basically the same ridiculous price..and market fragmentation.
All things considered, I'd trust Google further than Cablevision or Time Warner. Also consider...the classic encrypted, commercial-laden, non-interactive cable TV subscription is dead. It hasn't gotten the notice yet or been nice enough to curl up and die...but it's dead. On-demand, streaming, interactive TV delivered digitally to the devices I want, wherever I am is where it's all going. Given that most cable systems are already digital and streamed from media servers...there's zero reason why I need this ridiculous cable box with it's pointless restrictions other than to perpetuate a dead business model.
Consider if Google decided to combine Hulu, Netflix, Pandora, and tell the networks it'll carry them on it's terms - not the abusive ones they're trying to get out of the cable providers. Add in a per-channel or per-show cost (and offer a commercial vs non-commercial price)... Include that as a function on every android device...sure it's less per-viewer revenue upfront (maybe, but these viewers you know who they are and what they do!) but now you're getting to WAY more endpoints and people. And you can make your commercials targeted. It's a no-brainer. The only question is how long will the kicking and screaming last before we get there.
IS the majority better off? If you look at the ratio of CEO compensation vs average employee compensation over the last 30-40 years it's skyrocketed.
Now consider how easily someone can get a job to buy a house, a car, and support their family...nonono...not two parents who work 70 hours at 3 jobs each. One parent who comes home in time for dinner most nights.
My problem isn't immagrant labor per se, but the fact that they export much of the money they earn. They only need to be paid enough to survive on their own and send back enough wages to support their family who lives in a far cheaper place than the US.
No one minds WoW (etc.) requiring an online connection because that connection serves a purpose and delivers part of your experience. Without it you lose the basis of the game. Even while farming you have some social interaction and the chance to go off and raid or help out a guildy.
But what does this bring? As I understand it there is a social component to the new simcity but is it fundamental to the game? No. Can you build a city on your own? Yep. And on top of all that you don't bother getting your auth server (and save server) working properly? What's *wrong* with the people running this show?
Microtransactions can require internet *for the transaction*. Multiplayer? Sure. But the nonsense around single player games needing to be online to check in? It just walks down the restrictive path that the music industry tried with MP3 and DRM. You won't win.
When I was young (and perhaps naive) the concept of robots being able to do jobs in place of workers was new and profound. I thought to myself 'wow, if robots can do lots of this work faster/better/cheaper than the workers can work less hours for the same pay. We can make it so people don't have to work nearly as much to make a living and would have more time for their families.'
Needless to say I hadn't realized how greedy and corrupt the upper echelon of society was and is. It's disgusting.
I don't dislike foreigners. In fact, if you look back, our country consists almost entirely of them to begin with. I welcome diversity and the different perspectives it brings. As a manager, I employ people from many different demographics and each one brings something unique to my team. Their strengths contribute to the overall productivity of my company.
However, companies who take advantage of the opportunity to hire people from outside the country at a lower pay rate - and at the expense of a job for a citizen of this country - irk me. 'Your' company is based in this great country. It benefits from our infrastructure, market, and people. Your executives, board members and stock holders profit thusly. Great. How about you 'give back' insofar as to at least employ people from the country that gave you this opportunity and your comfortable lifestyle. The blatant manipulation of the policy and refusal to contribute back is where my problem lies.
Mod me troll or flamebait but it has to be said...
Seriously? You want to see a "news article showing the government suing a town's PD" regarding immigration? For fucks sake. Google 'news article showing the government suing a town's PD + immigration' and hit the I'm feeling lucky button.
Yeah. First link. Was that so hard? I mean, if you're going to take a position and argue something at least make a *SLIGHT* attempt to know what you're talking about.
Related to the discussion, I think it's ridiculous that there are laws on the books which 'can' only be enforced by certain agencies who are quite intentionally being extremely lax in enforcing.
Thank god someone with a brain saved me the trouble of writing that out.
We seem to be the only country more interested in making everyone besides ourselves (assuming you exclude corporate 'personas') happy...at our own expense.
Unemployment remains high, jobs are not particularly easy to come by for many, pay is lower than it should be, companies are cutting jobs and marginalizing other work, and so on. Do we really need to add another several hundred thousand jobs for non-citizens where the majority of the money will simply leave the country? Other than serving corporate greed, it does nothing to help our country. Tax them at 50% and put that money into training for US citizens.
Honestly with where unemployment is right now, the whole program SHOULD have been terminated. Those Representatives should consider who they represent these days.
This has NOTHING to do with free market economics. This is about a poorly written group of laws (DMCA) being used to manipulate a market and prevent you from using something you purchased in a way you want. It impedes first-sale doctrine.
Excluding T-Mobile, all major US carriers include in their monthly pricing the cost to subsidize your phone. So, while TMO has a cheaper monthly plan if you don't get a contract phone...no one else does. In addition, it isn't always the case that you're free to purchase an unlocked version from the carrier.
Our lawmakers need to get their collective heads out of their nether regions and wake up to the reality of the world today. This just brings back yet another pointless, unenforced, and ignored set of restrictions.
I wonder where that 52% came from. In my experience a large percentage of people engage in piracy openly and without remorse. Plenty more are indifferent.
52% of politicians on the MAFIAA dole said piracy should be punishable?
52% of 65+ upper class?
Or did they present punishment as a monetary fine equal to the value of what was downloaded instead of the 250000x that it is today
I *loathe* misused statistics like this. 4 our of 5 doctors agree. The 5th one we fired.
Some publishers and authors do allow it (see David Weber and Baen)
However for the most part it's because the publishing industry is several years behind even the travesty of the Music and Movie industries. Despite the extremely public, heated battles fought and effectively lost by both the publishing industry seems bent on repeating the same mistakes step by step. The only thing working in their favor is people 'consume' far fewer books than songs. Most people won't download a few dozen books a month like they would songs (or albums) so there is less demand for napster and kazaa for ebooks.
What I find ironic is the number of people who now consider reading socially acceptable on a kindle but would never *ever* pick up a book.
You're absolutely certain of that? 100% Also, who is this mysterious 'someone'?
In all reality i'm fairly sure you're entirely wrong. The reason Verizon sends warnings is two fold with the main reason being so they are "doing something" to appears the MAFIAA so they won't get sued. The secondary or ancillary reason is removing or limiting BT traffic lowers the load on their network...and scare tactics can work.
One of the worse things our court system in the US has done in recent years is allow mandatory binding arbitration and no class action clauses to be considered legally binding.
Except BT traffic by itself isn't the problem. Several legit sources use the same protocol for completely benign reasons - Blizzard for example.
I didn't RTFA but based on previous reading, this isn't 6 strikes of "using BT" but 6 strikes of reported copyright infringement. Very different indeed.
I still think the whole thing is a bunch of nonsense. The $35 arbitration fee is nothing more than extortion.
That's exceedingly narrowminded. Your mortgage terms are fixed. You might not like chase but it wouldn't actually change your terms in any way. I had exactly the same thing happen (Wamu mortgage) and all I had to do was update the info on my automatic billpay with my bank.
You haven't been to a strip club in a while. Imagine tossing dollar coins at the girls?
This sounds like a new sport until the bouncer breaks my throwing arm.
Seriously though, dollar bills are commonly used for tips, vending machines, etc. and keeping 5 in my pocket would be far less convenient than 5 $1 bills.
You can look at a counterpoint from the USA...this year.
Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Ban guns and only criminals have them. Sometimes it really is that simple.
Nuclear weapons (and chem/bio) are on a rather different level. I would support excluding those as they're orders of magnitude more dangerous and basically are only restrained by mutually assured destruction on a massive scale. If the government wants to use nuclear weapons on it's own citizens we're so far screwed we deserve to start over from rubble.
The rest? Fuck it. Let some hick have a tank - his neighbor has AP rounds for his RPG launcher.
When you drop the politically correct "i've been diagnosed with borderline shit-tier personality because my parents didn't buy me trendy xyz item and i'm all angsty from 10 years ago" and look at an alternate reality of "if you grope my wife and try to intimidate me on a street corner you said a fair chance I will shoot you in the head regardless of which iphone model you couldn't afford" people tend to get over their "issues" or get dead. Frankly either one works for me.
People tend to be a lot less likely to get impatient and impolite when there are actual consequences.
Of course not all gun owners are the perfectly rational people we'd like them to be. Neither are car owners. Neither are doctors. Neither are POLICE and MILITARY.
You can take any population and show a portion that's 'unfit'.
Now when you meet one of those unfit people would you prefer to have a method of self-defense (be it knowledge, a gun of your own, or something else) or forced to rely on a 3rd party that will be there "as soon as possible after you call and explain the situation.
mutually assured destruction works on small scales too.
...A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.
Yes. Exactly this. If you read the constitution and the words of our forefathers about it one of the fundamental reasons behind gun ownership being a right in the USA is to allow citizens to FORCE the government to listen. It's to ensure the citizens have a voice and a means to ensure that voice is not only heard, but acted on.
When irresponsible people attempt to use guns (being allowed/permitted to do so is irrelevant) and no responsible individuals are in the area with their own guns, bad shit happens.
How are these shootings stopped? BY GUNS. How does the newspaper who irresponsibly abused an already corrupt system respond? They rely on the same* guns they were trying to use to sell copies of their crap.
*Yes "same" as in I do believe said security guards would have to have been included in their list.
The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.
Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.
Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?
Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.
You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.
FWIW tineye and google image search don't find that picture anywhere but the linked article. Could be unrelated, but it's not a stock image that's been all over the place.
Looks like quite a bit of diesel fuel, precursor to the simplest of bombs. By itself makes you wonder...but then the rest of my brain goes 'well do they have a generator and frequent power outages, is that spare fuel for their oil burner because they live in an area that doesn't get plowed, are they empty cans or gotten on the cheap and used for something entirely different'
There's making 'explosives' as a kid and there's making large, dangerous bombs. Several people have pointed out how common household chemicals can make bombs. BFD. Now if you had the same chemicals in 55 gal drums with the start of a delivery system...you're on another playing field.
I do still think it's terrible that based on some teenage drawings in a private notebook they can raid a kids house.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't. What's SUPPOSED to happen is the buyer pays use tax in his/her home state. Really.
About 0% of people do so.
Since even the US Gov't realizes it isn't practical to go after the large majority of it's population they're shifting the burdon (or trying to) to those selling instead. Retailers are jumping onboard pointing at amazon and crying "no fair no fair no fair." Of course 'fair' for them is at the expense of...drumroll...the consumer of course. I'd totally continue to shop at a retailer that lobbied to make things from their competitors cost me more. Or not.
It would be better if we had a practical tax system instead of the nickel and dime charge this, deduct that, but charge this and don't deduct that while writing off this other unrelated thing and claiming a tax credit for a goat herding initiative in Somalia.
I love this (mis)quote. His lawyers are going to eat it up assuming he isn't smart enough to eat a gun on his own. You aren't given Miranda rights, they're just there. That's why they call it 'reading him his rights'. It's simply informing the individual.
Not that anything justified what he (likely) did but our legal system still pegs him as innocent until proven guilty. Oh wait, there's an exemption for that too I'm sure. Our legal system has truly become a mockery of itself.
For the longest time that was EXACTLY the case with cable in many areas. Same with phone service. It wasn't pretty...and most of what's come from bringing in 'competition' is an alternate option for basically the same ridiculous price..and market fragmentation.
All things considered, I'd trust Google further than Cablevision or Time Warner. Also consider...the classic encrypted, commercial-laden, non-interactive cable TV subscription is dead. It hasn't gotten the notice yet or been nice enough to curl up and die...but it's dead. On-demand, streaming, interactive TV delivered digitally to the devices I want, wherever I am is where it's all going. Given that most cable systems are already digital and streamed from media servers...there's zero reason why I need this ridiculous cable box with it's pointless restrictions other than to perpetuate a dead business model.
Consider if Google decided to combine Hulu, Netflix, Pandora, and tell the networks it'll carry them on it's terms - not the abusive ones they're trying to get out of the cable providers. Add in a per-channel or per-show cost (and offer a commercial vs non-commercial price)... Include that as a function on every android device...sure it's less per-viewer revenue upfront (maybe, but these viewers you know who they are and what they do!) but now you're getting to WAY more endpoints and people. And you can make your commercials targeted. It's a no-brainer. The only question is how long will the kicking and screaming last before we get there.
IS the majority better off? If you look at the ratio of CEO compensation vs average employee compensation over the last 30-40 years it's skyrocketed.
Now consider how easily someone can get a job to buy a house, a car, and support their family...nonono...not two parents who work 70 hours at 3 jobs each. One parent who comes home in time for dinner most nights.
My problem isn't immagrant labor per se, but the fact that they export much of the money they earn. They only need to be paid enough to survive on their own and send back enough wages to support their family who lives in a far cheaper place than the US.
...to the consumer.
No one minds WoW (etc.) requiring an online connection because that connection serves a purpose and delivers part of your experience. Without it you lose the basis of the game. Even while farming you have some social interaction and the chance to go off and raid or help out a guildy.
But what does this bring? As I understand it there is a social component to the new simcity but is it fundamental to the game? No. Can you build a city on your own? Yep. And on top of all that you don't bother getting your auth server (and save server) working properly? What's *wrong* with the people running this show?
Microtransactions can require internet *for the transaction*. Multiplayer? Sure. But the nonsense around single player games needing to be online to check in? It just walks down the restrictive path that the music industry tried with MP3 and DRM. You won't win.
Can't disagree.
When I was young (and perhaps naive) the concept of robots being able to do jobs in place of workers was new and profound. I thought to myself 'wow, if robots can do lots of this work faster/better/cheaper than the workers can work less hours for the same pay. We can make it so people don't have to work nearly as much to make a living and would have more time for their families.'
Needless to say I hadn't realized how greedy and corrupt the upper echelon of society was and is. It's disgusting.
I don't dislike foreigners. In fact, if you look back, our country consists almost entirely of them to begin with. I welcome diversity and the different perspectives it brings. As a manager, I employ people from many different demographics and each one brings something unique to my team. Their strengths contribute to the overall productivity of my company.
However, companies who take advantage of the opportunity to hire people from outside the country at a lower pay rate - and at the expense of a job for a citizen of this country - irk me. 'Your' company is based in this great country. It benefits from our infrastructure, market, and people. Your executives, board members and stock holders profit thusly. Great. How about you 'give back' insofar as to at least employ people from the country that gave you this opportunity and your comfortable lifestyle. The blatant manipulation of the policy and refusal to contribute back is where my problem lies.
Mod me troll or flamebait but it has to be said...
Seriously? You want to see a "news article showing the government suing a town's PD" regarding immigration? For fucks sake. Google 'news article showing the government suing a town's PD + immigration' and hit the I'm feeling lucky button.
Yeah. First link. Was that so hard? I mean, if you're going to take a position and argue something at least make a *SLIGHT* attempt to know what you're talking about.
Related to the discussion, I think it's ridiculous that there are laws on the books which 'can' only be enforced by certain agencies who are quite intentionally being extremely lax in enforcing.
Thank god someone with a brain saved me the trouble of writing that out.
We seem to be the only country more interested in making everyone besides ourselves (assuming you exclude corporate 'personas') happy...at our own expense.
Unemployment remains high, jobs are not particularly easy to come by for many, pay is lower than it should be, companies are cutting jobs and marginalizing other work, and so on. Do we really need to add another several hundred thousand jobs for non-citizens where the majority of the money will simply leave the country? Other than serving corporate greed, it does nothing to help our country. Tax them at 50% and put that money into training for US citizens.
Honestly with where unemployment is right now, the whole program SHOULD have been terminated. Those Representatives should consider who they represent these days.
This has NOTHING to do with free market economics. This is about a poorly written group of laws (DMCA) being used to manipulate a market and prevent you from using something you purchased in a way you want. It impedes first-sale doctrine.
Excluding T-Mobile, all major US carriers include in their monthly pricing the cost to subsidize your phone. So, while TMO has a cheaper monthly plan if you don't get a contract phone...no one else does. In addition, it isn't always the case that you're free to purchase an unlocked version from the carrier.
Our lawmakers need to get their collective heads out of their nether regions and wake up to the reality of the world today. This just brings back yet another pointless, unenforced, and ignored set of restrictions.
I wonder where that 52% came from. In my experience a large percentage of people engage in piracy openly and without remorse. Plenty more are indifferent.
52% of politicians on the MAFIAA dole said piracy should be punishable?
52% of 65+ upper class?
Or did they present punishment as a monetary fine equal to the value of what was downloaded instead of the 250000x that it is today
I *loathe* misused statistics like this. 4 our of 5 doctors agree. The 5th one we fired.
Some publishers and authors do allow it (see David Weber and Baen)
However for the most part it's because the publishing industry is several years behind even the travesty of the Music and Movie industries. Despite the extremely public, heated battles fought and effectively lost by both the publishing industry seems bent on repeating the same mistakes step by step. The only thing working in their favor is people 'consume' far fewer books than songs. Most people won't download a few dozen books a month like they would songs (or albums) so there is less demand for napster and kazaa for ebooks.
What I find ironic is the number of people who now consider reading socially acceptable on a kindle but would never *ever* pick up a book.
You're absolutely certain of that? 100% Also, who is this mysterious 'someone'?
In all reality i'm fairly sure you're entirely wrong. The reason Verizon sends warnings is two fold with the main reason being so they are "doing something" to appears the MAFIAA so they won't get sued. The secondary or ancillary reason is removing or limiting BT traffic lowers the load on their network...and scare tactics can work.
One of the worse things our court system in the US has done in recent years is allow mandatory binding arbitration and no class action clauses to be considered legally binding.
Except BT traffic by itself isn't the problem. Several legit sources use the same protocol for completely benign reasons - Blizzard for example.
I didn't RTFA but based on previous reading, this isn't 6 strikes of "using BT" but 6 strikes of reported copyright infringement. Very different indeed.
I still think the whole thing is a bunch of nonsense. The $35 arbitration fee is nothing more than extortion.
That's exceedingly narrowminded. Your mortgage terms are fixed. You might not like chase but it wouldn't actually change your terms in any way. I had exactly the same thing happen (Wamu mortgage) and all I had to do was update the info on my automatic billpay with my bank.
p.s. No one FORCED you to do a single thing.
You haven't been to a strip club in a while. Imagine tossing dollar coins at the girls?
This sounds like a new sport until the bouncer breaks my throwing arm.
Seriously though, dollar bills are commonly used for tips, vending machines, etc. and keeping 5 in my pocket would be far less convenient than 5 $1 bills.
Some genius will just run a min/max and to find the best way of ensuring every purchase comes out to $x.x3 to round up :)
You can look at a counterpoint from the USA...this year.
Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Ban guns and only criminals have them. Sometimes it really is that simple.
Nuclear weapons (and chem/bio) are on a rather different level. I would support excluding those as they're orders of magnitude more dangerous and basically are only restrained by mutually assured destruction on a massive scale. If the government wants to use nuclear weapons on it's own citizens we're so far screwed we deserve to start over from rubble.
The rest? Fuck it. Let some hick have a tank - his neighbor has AP rounds for his RPG launcher.
When you drop the politically correct "i've been diagnosed with borderline shit-tier personality because my parents didn't buy me trendy xyz item and i'm all angsty from 10 years ago" and look at an alternate reality of "if you grope my wife and try to intimidate me on a street corner you said a fair chance I will shoot you in the head regardless of which iphone model you couldn't afford" people tend to get over their "issues" or get dead. Frankly either one works for me.
People tend to be a lot less likely to get impatient and impolite when there are actual consequences.
Of course not all gun owners are the perfectly rational people we'd like them to be. Neither are car owners. Neither are doctors. Neither are POLICE and MILITARY.
You can take any population and show a portion that's 'unfit'.
Now when you meet one of those unfit people would you prefer to have a method of self-defense (be it knowledge, a gun of your own, or something else) or forced to rely on a 3rd party that will be there "as soon as possible after you call and explain the situation.
mutually assured destruction works on small scales too.
Yes. Exactly this. If you read the constitution and the words of our forefathers about it one of the fundamental reasons behind gun ownership being a right in the USA is to allow citizens to FORCE the government to listen. It's to ensure the citizens have a voice and a means to ensure that voice is not only heard, but acted on.
When irresponsible people attempt to use guns (being allowed/permitted to do so is irrelevant) and no responsible individuals are in the area with their own guns, bad shit happens.
How are these shootings stopped? BY GUNS. How does the newspaper who irresponsibly abused an already corrupt system respond? They rely on the same* guns they were trying to use to sell copies of their crap.
*Yes "same" as in I do believe said security guards would have to have been included in their list.
The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.
Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.
Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?
Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.
You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.
FWIW tineye and google image search don't find that picture anywhere but the linked article. Could be unrelated, but it's not a stock image that's been all over the place.
Looks like quite a bit of diesel fuel, precursor to the simplest of bombs. By itself makes you wonder...but then the rest of my brain goes 'well do they have a generator and frequent power outages, is that spare fuel for their oil burner because they live in an area that doesn't get plowed, are they empty cans or gotten on the cheap and used for something entirely different'
There's making 'explosives' as a kid and there's making large, dangerous bombs. Several people have pointed out how common household chemicals can make bombs. BFD. Now if you had the same chemicals in 55 gal drums with the start of a delivery system...you're on another playing field.
I do still think it's terrible that based on some teenage drawings in a private notebook they can raid a kids house.
Yep. If implemented it will simply lead to much greater add-friend spam.
Then FB locks that down and starts some type of charge model off that.
Then somewhere along the way another website turns FB into what myspace is today...and we move on.