For the purpose of taxation you need to know the product being sold as well as the physical address of the sale. Taxation levels can be different on different sides of the same road which can be within the same zipcode. If you ever get involved with tax collection for business you'll very quickly realize that it's obscene.
You're assuming that this is where the buck stops on taxation of online purchases. This is just the opening salvo. Next up is going to be county and city sales taxes. After that will be excise and other taxes.
The transaction count limit or dollar limit for compliance is crucial but S.Dakota did it in a bad way. They shouldn't have wrote 200 transactions. It's non-scalable. Hopefully the courts are cognizant of that when California drops theirs into the fray because if they wrote 200 transactions then that's going to be an onerous high compliance cost to do business in California. Ideally, the transaction/dollar thresholds should be based on census population counts.
If it were just 50 state sales taxes it would be simple. If this stops at state sales taxes then it's not bad but this will lead to counties and cities applying Internet sales taxes which will likely see court challenges. It will probably also lead to states trying to leverage excise and other local taxes against online retailers as well.
This is a general problem for businesses and not one isolated to online retailers. The problem is no different for Amazon than it is for any brick and mortar company and the burden is approximately equivalent. The sales in S.Dakota are peanuts compared to many other states and there's enough states they don't have nexus in that would be sufficient to justify picking up a tax system to handle the myriad of taxes which need to be collected which could also handle the peanuts they get from S.Dakota. The online retailers that can be hurt by this with onerous costs are the smaller ones that many only have a small number of sales with respect to the state's population and that's why the transaction count and dollar amount limits are crucially important.
200 transactions is a pretty reasonable limit for S.Dakota. It means you have to make a sale for every 4,350 people living in S.Dakota. That's a fairly significant market penetration for the state. If you compare a limit of 200 transactions for a state like California then you're talking about making a sale for about every 200,000 people living there. That's barely penetrating the market in California. In the case of S.Dakota you pretty much have to be an online vendor physically located in the state, a regional vendor selling mostly in S.Dakota and it's neighboring states, or a behemoth retailers like Amazon.
Most likely, the only reason such a group exists is because they believe it's a wedge issue for voters. There no need to make a pact with an organization to not accept funds from a given source. Just don't do it. Integrity doesn't require making grandstand gestures saying, "Look at me, I'm not going to do this." It's quite the opposite.
23 states have completely open primaries. Arizona is an open primary state for everything but the President. California has a primary system in which members of all parties are competing against each other for two slots. Louisiana and Washington use a system similar to California.
The top ten states by population are
California - No party primary. Texas - Open primary Florida - Closed primary New York - Closed primary Pennsylvania - Closed primary Illinois - Open primary Ohio - Open primary Georgia - Open primary North Carolina - Open primary Michigan - Open primary
I think a lot of animals understand nothing. I don't think they necessarily understand that nothing is similar to zero and that nothing, being similar to zero, is a valid comparison against a quantity. The reason for this is that it's difficult for humans to adequately understand the difference between zero and nothing although they are able to infer nothing equates to zero when doing comparisons.
I train you to select lower numbers and train you on 3 & 4 and 1 & 2. I am teaching you that the lower quantity received a reward. How you respond to 2 & 3, 1 & 4, and 1 & 3 becomes an interesting exercise. If your training conveys that fewer equals a reward then you should either right away or very quickly begin selecting the lower value. If it takes just as long for you to learn that 2 gives a reward when paired to 3 as it took you to learn that 1 gives a reward over 2 or 3 gives a reward over 4, then you probably don't understand the comparative aspect of the quantities and we have to train you on each pairing.
Moving forward to zero. I trained you to recognize that the outcome with the fewest number of elements results in a reward. If I show you 0 elements and 1 element and you know you get the reward for selecting the outcome with the fewest elements, your ability to comprehend zero is paramount as to whether you get a reward. If you don't recognize zero, and instead see nothing, versus one element you will select the one with the fewest elements which is the outcome of one. Additionally, if I expand the search out to multiple individuals and it's essentially a coin flip on whether zero or one is selected then it's probably a random selection due to the individuals not knowing which to pick. It's only in the instance the individuals greatly preference zero over one that the concept of understanding zero elements versus nothing.
Nothing isn't less than one. Nothing is the absence of something. It is only by first defining the subject that nothing gains the properties of zero and if I don't define the subject for you then you have to infer that nothing is zero rather than nothing.
What's rough about explaining the difference in zero and none is two concepts are so fluid, natural, and interchangeable to us that it's simple. Identifying that there is a difference between the two is a non-trivial subject and it's really not well understood outside of computing and mathematics as those are two of the few disciplines out there where the differences matter.
Take this basic pseudo code.
if (y > x) { select x } else { select y }
If x = 0 and y = 1 then x would be selected because the conditional evaluates true. If x = none and y = 1 then the conditional will evaluate false and y would be selected since you cannot compare a defined value with an undefined value.
If you, or an animal for that matter, can't comprehend the difference between zero and none then every time the animal is presented with the zero quantity of elements when the action to be taken is relying on the comparison between quantities then the results should effectively indicate a coin flip on which option is selected.
If I show you a blank canvas and ask you what's on it, you aren't going to answer zero because zero is a quantity of a given subject. If I ask you how many flowers are on a blank canvas then the answer would be zero since I quantified the subject. You could answer none but that's a linguistics interchangeability rather than a mathematical bit.
The advantage/disadvantage depends on the range of the random number generated. Since it's a random number, duplicates can be created. As an example, applicants who end up in the 9,997th through 10,004th positions all have the same random number. How those eight records are sorted makes a huge difference in outcome.
I just did a quick random number assignment in Excel for 20 records. First thing I noticed is that if the random function is used in the cell, sorting the data caused new random numbers to be generated. My 20th record was assigned 9, after sorting the random number was 8. This can be averted by disabling automatic calculation but still a quirk for the method. Second thing I noticed is that sorting kept the records in order within the sorting column. If I started with the numbers going from 1 to 20, and 3, 6, and 15 were assigned 3 then they would appear in the order 3, 6, and 15. That means that order application numbers are entered is critical for determining whether you end up in slot 10000 or 10001.
Yes, you can expand the range of random numbers to an extremely large range to try to avoid duplicates but regardless of whether it's PRNG or true RNG you still have the problem of duplicates. All you do is minimize the probability of them occurring. What this does mean is that there is a way to marginally increase your chances of having an accepted application but it requires that you know how the application numbers end up loaded into the spreadsheet so that you can file your application to take advantage of it.
Overall, this article is bullshit because the problem isn't with PRNG. The issues would be present regardless of if it were PRNG or RNG because the main flaw lies with how the numbers are used.
Which is why you just make sure all the seats have displays built into them rather than making a digital window. Then each passenger can select between a myriad of views.
While viewing store page for a 18+ game is a loophole there's a pretty large divide between viewing the product page and purchasing the product and the latter contains on a narrow set of paths by which a minor could purchase the product without direct parental consent.
There four sources for paying for steam products. Credit cards, debit cards, steam wallet, and prepaid credit cards. Of these... good luck having enough funds in the steam from selling items on the market place but it might work for some really cheap items on steam. Both credit cards and debit cards cannot get into the minor's hand without a parent's express permission. Banks won't issue either to the minor without a parent's consent and the parent's name on the account because that protects the bank. Even if the minor is able to make purchases with one or the other, why are you, the parent, failing to monitor the purchasing if you are concerned about it? The final method, pre-paid credit cards, is the only one that minors can use to circumvent parental supervision but this posits that the minor has an income flow with which to purchase the card which at this point we're talking minors of age 15+ in most cases.
It is highly unlikely that blanket restrictions on ammunition would be constitutional for the same reason under which poll taxes are struck down as unconstitutional. Ammunition bans and poll taxes both restrict a person's ability to exert a right.
So long as we live on only one planet, sooner or later something *will* kill us. Our exploding sun if nothing else.
Our star isn't massive enough to explode as a nova or supernova. It will, however, expand during it's red giant phase which should cause Earth to fall within it.
You're both wrong and right. Your wrong in the sense that the expectancy is based on the deaths from the previous year. Take every death from 2017 in the US and you'll find the average is 78.5. Where your right is that this is data based on a trial that took, on average, 78.5 years to complete (average starting in 1940). These are lives that, on average, pre-date the Clean Air Act, the decline of menial labor, the decline of smoking rates, the removal of lead from gasoline, the vast improvements in prenatal care that set people up for healthier lives, and the more recent pushes from governments and employers to the employees to make healthier decisions. That is how you're right. You won't know how wrong these estimates are for another eight decades.
In general, all economic activity, regardless of it is done at an individual level or the economic activity is restricted to within a single state, is economic activity that can be regulated via the Interstate Commerce Clause as the failure to participate in an interstate market is itself an interstate economic decision. That is the conclusion that was reached in the Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.
The fact that commerce that resides solely within a state and does not cross borders qualifies as interstate commerce is one of the stupid court cases the Supreme Court has made. It makes the inclusion of interstate in the commerce clause entirely pointless. Why specify interstate trade when you mean trade within a state?
But good luck getting Wickard v. Filburn overturned. That would just remove a core foundation for the modern US government's existence.
You only get long bill titles when it can be tweaked into a cute acronym, like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or as we know it, the "USA PATRIOT Act".
Alphabet's mean is 166,333 and its median is 197,000. Facebook's mean is 215,555 and its median 240,000. Amazon's mean is 54,271 and it's median 28,446.
Amazon has been pushing lots of automation which would potentially reduce the amount of low wage manual labor and consequently push the median salary upwards. Eliminating the two lowest paying jobs in the set I gave would increase their mean pay to 63,063 and the median to 30,000. They still have a huge manual labor workforce, the fact that the median pay is only 28,446 is indicative that the majority of Amazon employees are in the fulfillment centers, and that's just simply going to dwarf any assessment on the pay of their professional workforce.
There's nothing valuable or sane about comparing Amazon's median salary to that of Facebook or Alphabet. When either of the latter two start employing thousands of low wage workers you'll see their median salary plummet to Amazon levels.
But hey, I guess we can't expect the Wall Street Journal to apply basic critical thinking skills.
Potentially, there's very little that is impacted when it comes to the ability of the EPA to make sound and rational regulation decisions. The main reason that scientists and researchers are complaining about the rule change is because it shoulders them with the cost of first deanonymizing medical data in order to be able to present it for consideration in EPA rulemaking. They were not previously required to do this in which case they present research which the government in turn kept secret and consequently that research is unable to be vetted or checked by the public or direct subjects of EPA rulemaking.
If this were the only class of data that was being kept secret then it's fairly obvious that this is an issue with HIPAA laws and the law should be amended so that researchers and scientists do not count as covered entities. Much like how medical malpractice lawyers are not covered entities and can distribute your personal medical information as scrap paper to elementary schools without violating HIPAA. That would solve the problem and eliminate any need for the EPA keeping research used in rulemaking secret. Unfortunately, there are other classes of data which are likely used and have to be kept secret for other reasons.
If the goes is to have transparent discourse in rulemaking then the data used to make rulemaking needs to be available for parties in favor of and opposed to proposed rules. You can go about that via two approaches.
1. Prevent considering of data which cannot be made public. 2. Amend laws which require data considered to be kept secret rather than public.
Slashdot Mirror
The burden of paying the sales tax is on the buyer in all cases. The seller is just legally required to collect it on behalf of the collection agency.
Sellers may opt to pay the sales tax for you or would be required to pay it for you if they neglected to collect the sales tax.
For the purpose of taxation you need to know the product being sold as well as the physical address of the sale. Taxation levels can be different on different sides of the same road which can be within the same zipcode. If you ever get involved with tax collection for business you'll very quickly realize that it's obscene.
You're assuming that this is where the buck stops on taxation of online purchases. This is just the opening salvo. Next up is going to be county and city sales taxes. After that will be excise and other taxes.
The transaction count limit or dollar limit for compliance is crucial but S.Dakota did it in a bad way. They shouldn't have wrote 200 transactions. It's non-scalable. Hopefully the courts are cognizant of that when California drops theirs into the fray because if they wrote 200 transactions then that's going to be an onerous high compliance cost to do business in California. Ideally, the transaction/dollar thresholds should be based on census population counts.
If it were just 50 state sales taxes it would be simple. If this stops at state sales taxes then it's not bad but this will lead to counties and cities applying Internet sales taxes which will likely see court challenges. It will probably also lead to states trying to leverage excise and other local taxes against online retailers as well.
This is a general problem for businesses and not one isolated to online retailers. The problem is no different for Amazon than it is for any brick and mortar company and the burden is approximately equivalent. The sales in S.Dakota are peanuts compared to many other states and there's enough states they don't have nexus in that would be sufficient to justify picking up a tax system to handle the myriad of taxes which need to be collected which could also handle the peanuts they get from S.Dakota. The online retailers that can be hurt by this with onerous costs are the smaller ones that many only have a small number of sales with respect to the state's population and that's why the transaction count and dollar amount limits are crucially important.
200 transactions is a pretty reasonable limit for S.Dakota. It means you have to make a sale for every 4,350 people living in S.Dakota. That's a fairly significant market penetration for the state. If you compare a limit of 200 transactions for a state like California then you're talking about making a sale for about every 200,000 people living there. That's barely penetrating the market in California. In the case of S.Dakota you pretty much have to be an online vendor physically located in the state, a regional vendor selling mostly in S.Dakota and it's neighboring states, or a behemoth retailers like Amazon.
Most likely, the only reason such a group exists is because they believe it's a wedge issue for voters. There no need to make a pact with an organization to not accept funds from a given source. Just don't do it. Integrity doesn't require making grandstand gestures saying, "Look at me, I'm not going to do this." It's quite the opposite.
23 states have completely open primaries. Arizona is an open primary state for everything but the President. California has a primary system in which members of all parties are competing against each other for two slots. Louisiana and Washington use a system similar to California.
The top ten states by population are
California - No party primary.
Texas - Open primary
Florida - Closed primary
New York - Closed primary
Pennsylvania - Closed primary
Illinois - Open primary
Ohio - Open primary
Georgia - Open primary
North Carolina - Open primary
Michigan - Open primary
Why have the Navy run a base far inland?
Logistics and R&D. The Navy operates a sub R&D base out of Idaho.
I think a lot of animals understand nothing. I don't think they necessarily understand that nothing is similar to zero and that nothing, being similar to zero, is a valid comparison against a quantity. The reason for this is that it's difficult for humans to adequately understand the difference between zero and nothing although they are able to infer nothing equates to zero when doing comparisons.
I train you to select lower numbers and train you on 3 & 4 and 1 & 2. I am teaching you that the lower quantity received a reward. How you respond to 2 & 3, 1 & 4, and 1 & 3 becomes an interesting exercise. If your training conveys that fewer equals a reward then you should either right away or very quickly begin selecting the lower value. If it takes just as long for you to learn that 2 gives a reward when paired to 3 as it took you to learn that 1 gives a reward over 2 or 3 gives a reward over 4, then you probably don't understand the comparative aspect of the quantities and we have to train you on each pairing.
Moving forward to zero. I trained you to recognize that the outcome with the fewest number of elements results in a reward. If I show you 0 elements and 1 element and you know you get the reward for selecting the outcome with the fewest elements, your ability to comprehend zero is paramount as to whether you get a reward. If you don't recognize zero, and instead see nothing, versus one element you will select the one with the fewest elements which is the outcome of one. Additionally, if I expand the search out to multiple individuals and it's essentially a coin flip on whether zero or one is selected then it's probably a random selection due to the individuals not knowing which to pick. It's only in the instance the individuals greatly preference zero over one that the concept of understanding zero elements versus nothing.
Nothing isn't less than one. Nothing is the absence of something. It is only by first defining the subject that nothing gains the properties of zero and if I don't define the subject for you then you have to infer that nothing is zero rather than nothing.
You're telling me I can't run it on the antikythera mechanism? Well, that sucks.
What's rough about explaining the difference in zero and none is two concepts are so fluid, natural, and interchangeable to us that it's simple. Identifying that there is a difference between the two is a non-trivial subject and it's really not well understood outside of computing and mathematics as those are two of the few disciplines out there where the differences matter.
Take this basic pseudo code.
if (y > x) { select x } else { select y }
If x = 0 and y = 1 then x would be selected because the conditional evaluates true. If x = none and y = 1 then the conditional will evaluate false and y would be selected since you cannot compare a defined value with an undefined value.
If you, or an animal for that matter, can't comprehend the difference between zero and none then every time the animal is presented with the zero quantity of elements when the action to be taken is relying on the comparison between quantities then the results should effectively indicate a coin flip on which option is selected.
If I show you a blank canvas and ask you what's on it, you aren't going to answer zero because zero is a quantity of a given subject. If I ask you how many flowers are on a blank canvas then the answer would be zero since I quantified the subject. You could answer none but that's a linguistics interchangeability rather than a mathematical bit.
The advantage/disadvantage depends on the range of the random number generated. Since it's a random number, duplicates can be created. As an example, applicants who end up in the 9,997th through 10,004th positions all have the same random number. How those eight records are sorted makes a huge difference in outcome.
I just did a quick random number assignment in Excel for 20 records. First thing I noticed is that if the random function is used in the cell, sorting the data caused new random numbers to be generated. My 20th record was assigned 9, after sorting the random number was 8. This can be averted by disabling automatic calculation but still a quirk for the method. Second thing I noticed is that sorting kept the records in order within the sorting column. If I started with the numbers going from 1 to 20, and 3, 6, and 15 were assigned 3 then they would appear in the order 3, 6, and 15. That means that order application numbers are entered is critical for determining whether you end up in slot 10000 or 10001.
Yes, you can expand the range of random numbers to an extremely large range to try to avoid duplicates but regardless of whether it's PRNG or true RNG you still have the problem of duplicates. All you do is minimize the probability of them occurring. What this does mean is that there is a way to marginally increase your chances of having an accepted application but it requires that you know how the application numbers end up loaded into the spreadsheet so that you can file your application to take advantage of it.
Overall, this article is bullshit because the problem isn't with PRNG. The issues would be present regardless of if it were PRNG or RNG because the main flaw lies with how the numbers are used.
Aim for a +5 Troll.
Which is why you just make sure all the seats have displays built into them rather than making a digital window. Then each passenger can select between a myriad of views.
While viewing store page for a 18+ game is a loophole there's a pretty large divide between viewing the product page and purchasing the product and the latter contains on a narrow set of paths by which a minor could purchase the product without direct parental consent.
There four sources for paying for steam products. Credit cards, debit cards, steam wallet, and prepaid credit cards. Of these... good luck having enough funds in the steam from selling items on the market place but it might work for some really cheap items on steam. Both credit cards and debit cards cannot get into the minor's hand without a parent's express permission. Banks won't issue either to the minor without a parent's consent and the parent's name on the account because that protects the bank. Even if the minor is able to make purchases with one or the other, why are you, the parent, failing to monitor the purchasing if you are concerned about it? The final method, pre-paid credit cards, is the only one that minors can use to circumvent parental supervision but this posits that the minor has an income flow with which to purchase the card which at this point we're talking minors of age 15+ in most cases.
It is highly unlikely that blanket restrictions on ammunition would be constitutional for the same reason under which poll taxes are struck down as unconstitutional. Ammunition bans and poll taxes both restrict a person's ability to exert a right.
So long as we live on only one planet, sooner or later something *will* kill us. Our exploding sun if nothing else.
Our star isn't massive enough to explode as a nova or supernova. It will, however, expand during it's red giant phase which should cause Earth to fall within it.
If you read the Wikipedia link then you would have seen that North Asia is Russia east of the Urals.
You're both wrong and right. Your wrong in the sense that the expectancy is based on the deaths from the previous year. Take every death from 2017 in the US and you'll find the average is 78.5. Where your right is that this is data based on a trial that took, on average, 78.5 years to complete (average starting in 1940). These are lives that, on average, pre-date the Clean Air Act, the decline of menial labor, the decline of smoking rates, the removal of lead from gasoline, the vast improvements in prenatal care that set people up for healthier lives, and the more recent pushes from governments and employers to the employees to make healthier decisions. That is how you're right. You won't know how wrong these estimates are for another eight decades.
In general, all economic activity, regardless of it is done at an individual level or the economic activity is restricted to within a single state, is economic activity that can be regulated via the Interstate Commerce Clause as the failure to participate in an interstate market is itself an interstate economic decision. That is the conclusion that was reached in the Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.
They ignore it because they just point at Wickard v. Filburn and go "Nuh uh, the Supreme Court said we could."
The fact that commerce that resides solely within a state and does not cross borders qualifies as interstate commerce is one of the stupid court cases the Supreme Court has made. It makes the inclusion of interstate in the commerce clause entirely pointless. Why specify interstate trade when you mean trade within a state?
But good luck getting Wickard v. Filburn overturned. That would just remove a core foundation for the modern US government's existence.
You only get long bill titles when it can be tweaked into a cute acronym, like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or as we know it, the "USA PATRIOT Act".
Having a large number of low salaries workers can distort the median.
For a hypothetical, let's say each company employees 9 workers.
Alphabet's employees are paid ( 100,000 | 120,000 | 130,000 | 140,000 | 197,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 210,000 ).
Facebook's employees are paid ( 100,000 | 150,000 | 170,000 | 210,000 | 240,000 | 260,000 | 265,000 | 270,000| 275,000 ).
Amazone's employees are paid ( 23,000 | 24,000 | 26,000 | 27,000 | 28,446 | 30,000 | 100,000 | 110,000 | 120,000).
Alphabet's mean is 166,333 and its median is 197,000. Facebook's mean is 215,555 and its median 240,000. Amazon's mean is 54,271 and it's median 28,446.
Amazon has been pushing lots of automation which would potentially reduce the amount of low wage manual labor and consequently push the median salary upwards. Eliminating the two lowest paying jobs in the set I gave would increase their mean pay to 63,063 and the median to 30,000. They still have a huge manual labor workforce, the fact that the median pay is only 28,446 is indicative that the majority of Amazon employees are in the fulfillment centers, and that's just simply going to dwarf any assessment on the pay of their professional workforce.
There's nothing valuable or sane about comparing Amazon's median salary to that of Facebook or Alphabet. When either of the latter two start employing thousands of low wage workers you'll see their median salary plummet to Amazon levels.
But hey, I guess we can't expect the Wall Street Journal to apply basic critical thinking skills.
Potentially, there's very little that is impacted when it comes to the ability of the EPA to make sound and rational regulation decisions. The main reason that scientists and researchers are complaining about the rule change is because it shoulders them with the cost of first deanonymizing medical data in order to be able to present it for consideration in EPA rulemaking. They were not previously required to do this in which case they present research which the government in turn kept secret and consequently that research is unable to be vetted or checked by the public or direct subjects of EPA rulemaking.
If this were the only class of data that was being kept secret then it's fairly obvious that this is an issue with HIPAA laws and the law should be amended so that researchers and scientists do not count as covered entities. Much like how medical malpractice lawyers are not covered entities and can distribute your personal medical information as scrap paper to elementary schools without violating HIPAA. That would solve the problem and eliminate any need for the EPA keeping research used in rulemaking secret. Unfortunately, there are other classes of data which are likely used and have to be kept secret for other reasons.
If the goes is to have transparent discourse in rulemaking then the data used to make rulemaking needs to be available for parties in favor of and opposed to proposed rules. You can go about that via two approaches.
1. Prevent considering of data which cannot be made public.
2. Amend laws which require data considered to be kept secret rather than public.