While you have been taxed on that car (through sales tax on the initial purchase, annual registration, upkeep of your driver's license, on every gallon of fuel you put into it, built into the price of your car insurance, etc), you won't be taxed on the sale of it due to this proposal unless you are running a business that buys cars from one place and sells them elsewhere.
Meanwhile, if you happen to be running an online car dealership, I promise you that you have been taxes before the 1099-k.
If you sell a car, you already have to report it, including book value and sales price, when you transfer title. Garage sales are specifically excluded from this (as long as you arent buying things specifically to sell at your garage sale).
Yes, but cars generally have VIN numbers and registration. Even a used car dealer is going to have a hell of a time hiding the fact that they sold a car (after all, if its still in their inventory and not reported stolen, how will they explain that it was involved in an accident 5 states away?).
If you are going to Sam's club to buy items you use in your business, yes, you need to keep your receipts, so that you can show your expenses (used to offset revenue to determine income for tax purposes). If you are going to Sam's club to buy groceries and fertilizer for your lawn, that isn't a business purpose.
The only reason you might need to keep track of that $3 can of shaving cream is if your business is a full service barbershop that still does old-timey shaves.
In the meantime, most businesses that have regular dealings with suppliers have monthly invoices. Walk into store, buy whatever on company credit card/credit line, get summary at end of month. 12 items a year isn't much to track.
The HP C8721 can be found online for $3.95, and if you spend $75, you get a $15 gas card rebate (I don't get the connection, but who cares).
Ignoring the rebate, the 4.2 oz refill can be found for $7.50
That would be about $60 per liter, not 10,000. This is roughly double the cost for buying print heads, which have things beyond just ink (like microchips, R&D, and a profit margin).
You are correct that poker has a long term viewpoint, hand to hand doesn't matter.
However, in a long term viewpoint, you average 20k in winnings per year. In Y1, there are no taxes, so your gain is 20k. In Y2, you have 30% taxes, so your gain is 14k. Neither is a loss.
Your example doesn't show profit and reduced profit, it shows profit and loss. Year 1 you had a net 14k gain, year 2 you had a 16k loss. Taxes didn't cause your losses, losing at poker did. In other words, your gross winnings are not reduced because of taxes.
In a retail concept, you have a fixed market in which you can charge a specific price for a good, which year by year, people don't necessarily buy as much of. You have a long term contract where you pay a specific amount for your inputs and purchase a specified amount to obtain that price. One year, there is low competition and you can sell a lot. The next year, more competitors (or better competitors) get in on the market and you can't sell enough of your inventory to cover your fixed costs. To be fair, this is like tournament play. If you want to compare to a cash game, where anyone can sit in or leave as long a hand has end, then get rid of the long term contract. You still don't know what will happen year by year until you play, although you may know how your competitors have acted in the past and who is likely to enter the market.
The only difference with gambling winnings is that you go in knowing that winnings are taxed while losses only reduce your taxable winnings in the present period (no carryforward). Taxes do not affect your gross margin and therefore cannot cause your overall loss.
You could go from small winner to practically breaking even, and you may have to change the type of game you play (to higher stakes or to a better long term winning strategy), but government is not going to rake the pot. They are going to rake the cash out. This is true of tournment play as well, as you can deduct your gambling losses up to your gambling winnings (ie if you enter $1000 worth of tournaments and lose, no deduction, but if you enter $1000 worth of tournaments and win a total of $1500, you only get taxed on the $500 profit).
Rush poker is completely pointless. The order of blinds is based on how long it has been since you have been blinded (if you sit and think about your hands, you will be blinded much less often, because it is based on number of hands, not time). Meanwhile, the gameplay in rush poker is much, much more of an all-in or fold every hand mentality. You are playing lottery, not poker, and the level of skill is the roughly the same an indian poker (hold a card on your forehead without looking at it and bet whether or not its higher than your opponents).
There are several types of hands in poker - a few you fold immediately, a few you play no matter what, and then the majority are hands you gamble with. You decide based on how others are playing, how they react to your actions over time, how they adjust for chip stack sizes, how they react after a big hand win or lose), whether they carry emotion based on a specific type of play, whether they are affected by alcohol/food/length of time at the table, and so many, many other issues. It is rarely about cards. At an 8 person table, when 1 player doesn't know what they are doing and throws money around like an idiot on any cards, the other 7 players are excited; they are going to get paid. When 6 players do it, I leave the table because that is pretty much the same thing as 6 people at the same table colluding. They don't need to see each others cards to make my marginal hands worthless, they just bet me out by either never folding or always folding. If player A bets, player B raises, and player C acts after me and goes all in if Im still in the hand, the types of hands I can play drops dramatically and my presence at the table means a lot less, as do my cards.
Try this experiment in a live cash no limit texas holdem game (despite its modern popularity, its the only card game where you routinely find newcomers or players who never get beyond the basic concepts yet still play for money) with 2 people who know each other in an 8-10 handed table: Sit as far apart as you can to each other and neither of you look at your cards. Every nth hand (3 or 4 is best) excluding blinds (play blinds like you normally play hands), have player A raise to 4 or 5 times the blinds and have player B go all in unless someone else already has. If your opponents are good but not great (in my experience, about 80% of regular poker players), over time you will eke out a small profit, picking up pots as often as your opponents yet taking down the blinds a considerable portion of the time enough to outweigh the times you run into play no matter what hands. If your opponents are not good, you will get callers with things like suited connectors and ATC. Bear in mind that against semi-pro/professional players, you will lose because they will figure out what you are doing and you will not be adjusting to their game.
Now try the same thing online (you will have to put something on your screen so that you don't see the cards). 1000-1 that within an hour, several players will accuse you of cheating or of being a complete moron. Within a month, your IP address will be banned (because your betting pattern and the fact that you only play when you are across from someone will give you away, and you will not have a way to prove that you aren't looking at each other's cards). Meanwhile, you will not have made any money. Too many bad players online. That isn't to say that one cannot make money consistently playing poker online. Its just a different game. There is much less information, you play orders of magnitude more hands, individual decisions mean less and thus provide less information, so post flop play becomes much more important while the leverage you can apply with the exact same actions is diminished. Its great for learning as you get to see more types of playing styles more often, but you also never really play anyone great because you won't recognize what they are doing the first couple hundred times.
Bear in mind that playing reactively to another player isn't against the rules (no more
I, in fact, did read the original poster, and your response, to which I replied. The response that you posted to which I replied stated that copyright infringement is a criminal act (which I noted it generally is not) and that one person had been extradited for committing it (to which I pointed out that the extradition was for conspiracy, not infringement, and that it occurred because both governments involved agreed that extradition was the best way to capture a criminal). Your response had nothing to do with the UK or the US, and to claim a generalized statement was meant to mean something specific but completely different from the words posted and any meaning that could be derived is absurd.
Despite this, I will refute your new points, that are not related to the prior post.
Downloading is not distribution, nor is it for commercial purposes, and case law has shown that making available is not copyright infringement nor in and of itself, a criminal or civil act.
As for your last sentence, I am going to have to repeat myself, because you seem to have ignored a large portion of my response.
Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is a criminal act if the conspiracy would reasonably be harmful to society. Conspiracy against a private organization could be seen as either civil or criminal, depending on the scope of the act. A blanket statement of criminal act when referring to copyright infringement is misleading at best, and fraudulent if done knowingly.
IANAL, but I'm also willing to do five minutes of research before making claims of what I think is correct before making blanket statements based on wikipedia articles that I didn't read (a wikipedia article, by the way, which claims that the neutrality of the article is disputed since January 2008 despite the entirety of the article being factual information, which could only contain bias based on the reader, not based on the information contained). Copyright infringement is a generally not a criminal act (in order to be criminal, it has to include a profit motive, so using bittorent for personal use isn't going to land you in jail). Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is a criminal act if the conspiracy would reasonably be harmful to society. Conspiracy against a private organization could be seen as either civil or criminal, depending on the scope of the act. A blanket statement of criminal act when referring to copyright infringement is misleading at best, and fraudulent if done knowingly (although oddly enough, false accusations of copyright infringement is a civil act, as is false repudiation of claim that you own copyright to copyrighted materials for which you do not, unless of course, in either situation, as profit motive is provable, in which case it becomes a criminal act).
Griffiths (your cited example) was extradited for breaking terms of US copyright law, not the AUSTFA, at a time period when the two were not (for all intensive purposes) the same. It was determined by Australian courts that the US was the best place for prosecution because both the courts and executive government agreed that the actions had taken place under US jurisdiction. This was a consequence of bilateral arrangements between the US and Australia, but the charge was not copyright infringement, but rather conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Despite this, it took three years for such determination to be finalized, indicating that extradition is not something taken lightly by either government (it wasn't the US really wanted this, and Australia really fought back, it was that both the US and Australian government agreed he should have been tried for criminal actions but he could not be tried under the previous Australian law; and the value to society of prosecution in the US was deemed to be a better solution for society than failing to extradite). If Griffiths had been arrested under the exact same charges today, he would not have been extradited because AUSTFA has been updated to correlate more closely with US copyright law and he would be prosecuted in an Australian court.
I didn't mean the word itself was fake as in not real, I meant its use was improper for its meaning in context. Its more likely that the combination of majoritarian mythology, which is done for alliteration, rather than meaning, that brought me to my original conclusion, but since this isn't a psychology lecture, I won't go into the details of why you find something that didn't occur to be laughable.
Due to the limited number of posts per day, I'm going to stop responding to pointless and snarky off-topic comments, but if you would like try some others, feel free to browse the rest of the message board and then keep those thoughts to yourself.
A majoritarian electoral system is a simple electoral system which usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes (like British Parliament). This in context was not parent's intended use of the word, but rather to mean majority rule (which was the context to which I replied, and the reason i put 'majoritarian' in quotes). My assumption based on context is that parent heard the term also used improperly on some crappy television news program. Parent's use of majoritarian was improper, as parent meant educational rule by ochlocracy (mob rule), as opposed to the concept that you remember from college in your political science papers.
Its annoying to know that you read the word and treat it as a commonly used standard archetype, yet never bothered to learn what it meant.
History is an exercise in 'majoritarian' mythology (As a quick aside, please don't use these ridiculous news channel fear mongering fake words, they just make you sound stupid. You could easily have said something along the lines of belief in stories without first person accounts lining up with evidence). Wars determine not who is right, but rather who is left. Sure, today we may have more information about both sides of a war than say 10(00) years ago, but in some places, history really is whatever people say it is. I don't agree with knowingly teaching things that are incorrect (ie teaching creationism as science), but lets not pretend that even a best effort historical evidence based approach will give us a true view of history.
Bridge inspections are a vote on whether or not they are going to fall down. I can tell you from personal experience (I was 3 feet away from a bridge that fell at a NASCAR track in charlotte) that inspections don't determine whether or not a bridge will fall; it simply tells whether or not it is up to code. Our inspection system (bridge or otherwise) is based on level of failure. We keep a level of requirement for inspection, then when something fails while passing inspection, we change the requirements (regardless of whether or not the failure was due to items under inspection).
You sucked at it (well, you certainly didn't think). There is so much competition among trucking companies that I will get a better contract than they want to give me.
Yes, truck fleets have to compensate me for destruction of my physical goods, and any that I am going to consider will be licensed and bonded. As for MS compensating me for damages, I am quite certain that they would, if I were able to show that I had damages based on normal expected use of MS business software, yes, MS would be liable for damages that it should have expected. Under normal use, I can't think of any security flaws. If any should arise, the service contract is for MS to patch and fix any that might. In the history of mankind, however, you can show me a single time that a user's computer blew up because of the use of Office, I'm willing to bet that MS would pay to replace it.
Now, when you install the smiley progam or read an email attachment that says 'i love you' and so forth, and you end up having to reinstall your OS, that is your fault, not MS's.
That sounds like your fault, for failing reading comprehension m(especially since your situation is entirely different than what I called out).
I specifically pointed out that if you use googledocs (which would include openoffice), you could and should be penalized for not adhering to paper requirements.
You got marked down either because you didn't follow directions regarding formatting or your paper was not well written (which, having not met your professor or read your paper, I would assume the latter). The point of my calling bullshit however, was on the basis that students were being failed because a word doc shows up differently because of a different version of word on a different computer. Your issue where you used a different software program, rather than an older/newer version of a specific program, sounds like you deserved to be marked down.
If you want to claim that there were no software requirements for the class for an online course, I'm calling bullshit on you as well.
Furthermore, what the hell were you putting in an english paper that didn't work in the conversion from openoffice to word?
Would you tolerate that your floors could only be provided by ONE company and that it means no body else can put in a carpet without it breaking gravity? Would you allow your truck fleet to be provided by only ONE company and have that company know it?
If I could have a company come install carpet and break gravity, I would do so immediately. Then I would open weightless world. Who the hell wouldn't?
I would absolutely allow my truck fleet to be provided by one company. I would have them entered into a multi-year contract, with prices set at specified rates or linked to prevailing market rates (determined by an unrelated 3rd party) and have very strict delivery requirements with penalties enforceable to the effect of non-payment and the ability to end the contract as of a specific year or delivery (ie if delivery x is late, I don't pay for that delivery, and if y number of deliveries are late or aggregated late by a specified amount, I don't pay for any deliveries). This cancellation point will be set at a higher standard than I actually demand from my singular truck fleet. The fleet would in turn get a minimum required service level (number of deliveries I pay for whether I ask for that many or not) with pricing structure to their benefit when I need higher usage than a specified level. All of this would be determined annually based on my expected needs. Under contract law, if they were ever unable to provide the contracted service level, I could just get service on the open market at prevailing rates and charge off the difference between contract price and market price (it would be a slam dunk in court to collect, including court costs).
In short, you are missing a huge number of details about how I would enter into a long term contract.
MS is not all that different than truck fleets; the software is a service that I pay for based on usage. If I need 1000 seats, I pay more than if I need 100. There is nothing that is stopping me from getting competitive software (SAP for accounting, for example) on MS's end. If I can influence my clients (they really, really, need me to do the work and can't go to a competitor), maybe I can require that they use whatever I want them to use. Generally, I am going to have to put it in my client's preferred format (and make them provide me with the tools to do so if I don't have it). The industry standard is going to be word, excel, and powerpoint for the majority of companies because it is both easiest to use and train on, but also cheaper than most other formats (cost of training is often much more expensive than cost of software, even if free).
I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.
I'm calling bullshit.
The specified format that teachers/professors use is generally the format that the on campus computers use (if you are in high school, the format is printed, not electronic), so if you are a student, you have access to write your paper, save it in the appropriate format, and electronically convey it to the professor using your school email address. Or if you live off campus, you can write in the format of choice, send to your school email address, show up on campus, convert it from the text, and send it to your professor through email. Other teachers use turnitin or some other web based service that formats text for the recipient automatically. If you are taking online classes, the format for papers will be specified, and it is the student's fault, not Word, for failure to adhere to it.
As for using googledocs for a paper, if it has graphic requirements (charts, analysis, specified formating), the student can and should be penalized for not adhering to the requirements. This makes googledocs a non-solution. Think of it as training for the real world. If your boss wants a one page, double spaced, times new roman, 11 font summary of what you did this month, you damn better well not be surprised when you get fired for turning in a 4 page email complaint about how you wanted to use googledocs instead of wasting paper.
The unfortunate thing is that you want to blame Word for your personal failures.
I would assume because most of us have seen existing things and because of alcohol or inability to determine the differences at a glance (because the girlfriend was there and staring is unacceptable under such circumstances), we actually believe that digitally enhanced model is not only possible, but exists at the local pub.
By the way, you don't have to be married to find unattractive people as such. Most husbands didnt choose to get married because their wives rivaled models (in fact, relationships based on looks alone are either quite empty or about to end, or both).
On the other hand, when couples watch adult content, it often improves relationships. I don't know how to explain that, it must be biological. It even works if the heterosexual couple watches two girls go at it (I can't speak for whether watching two guys go at it helps a relationship, as I have neither scientific study nor personal experience).
I have no idea why you get depressed by the fact that technology allows us to create images of more perfect beings than ourselves...personally, I enjoy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that was kind of my point.
While you have been taxed on that car (through sales tax on the initial purchase, annual registration, upkeep of your driver's license, on every gallon of fuel you put into it, built into the price of your car insurance, etc), you won't be taxed on the sale of it due to this proposal unless you are running a business that buys cars from one place and sells them elsewhere.
Meanwhile, if you happen to be running an online car dealership, I promise you that you have been taxes before the 1099-k.
If you sell a car, you already have to report it, including book value and sales price, when you transfer title. Garage sales are specifically excluded from this (as long as you arent buying things specifically to sell at your garage sale).
Yes, but cars generally have VIN numbers and registration. Even a used car dealer is going to have a hell of a time hiding the fact that they sold a car (after all, if its still in their inventory and not reported stolen, how will they explain that it was involved in an accident 5 states away?).
If you are going to Sam's club to buy items you use in your business, yes, you need to keep your receipts, so that you can show your expenses (used to offset revenue to determine income for tax purposes). If you are going to Sam's club to buy groceries and fertilizer for your lawn, that isn't a business purpose.
The only reason you might need to keep track of that $3 can of shaving cream is if your business is a full service barbershop that still does old-timey shaves.
In the meantime, most businesses that have regular dealings with suppliers have monthly invoices. Walk into store, buy whatever on company credit card/credit line, get summary at end of month. 12 items a year isn't much to track.
Why would I do that? /. is a US centric site, and if you don't understand, you can use google to convert on your own.
Lazy bastard.
The 5th step is dismissal. The other 4 steps have to be taken first.
The HP C8721 can be found online for $3.95, and if you spend $75, you get a $15 gas card rebate (I don't get the connection, but who cares).
Ignoring the rebate, the 4.2 oz refill can be found for $7.50
That would be about $60 per liter, not 10,000. This is roughly double the cost for buying print heads, which have things beyond just ink (like microchips, R&D, and a profit margin).
You want me to waste $12 on someone who thinks I'm a bad cook?
That's the problem with random stabs in the dark...you can never be sure if its actually random.
Perhaps not.
That 13.9 is the country suicide rate. This jumper was the 9th one at the factory. How many suicides actually occur at work?
You are correct that poker has a long term viewpoint, hand to hand doesn't matter.
However, in a long term viewpoint, you average 20k in winnings per year. In Y1, there are no taxes, so your gain is 20k. In Y2, you have 30% taxes, so your gain is 14k. Neither is a loss.
Your example doesn't show profit and reduced profit, it shows profit and loss. Year 1 you had a net 14k gain, year 2 you had a 16k loss. Taxes didn't cause your losses, losing at poker did. In other words, your gross winnings are not reduced because of taxes.
In a retail concept, you have a fixed market in which you can charge a specific price for a good, which year by year, people don't necessarily buy as much of. You have a long term contract where you pay a specific amount for your inputs and purchase a specified amount to obtain that price. One year, there is low competition and you can sell a lot. The next year, more competitors (or better competitors) get in on the market and you can't sell enough of your inventory to cover your fixed costs. To be fair, this is like tournament play. If you want to compare to a cash game, where anyone can sit in or leave as long a hand has end, then get rid of the long term contract. You still don't know what will happen year by year until you play, although you may know how your competitors have acted in the past and who is likely to enter the market.
The only difference with gambling winnings is that you go in knowing that winnings are taxed while losses only reduce your taxable winnings in the present period (no carryforward). Taxes do not affect your gross margin and therefore cannot cause your overall loss.
No it doesn't. Reducing a profit does not make a loss.
Not possible. Taxes are on profit.
You could go from small winner to practically breaking even, and you may have to change the type of game you play (to higher stakes or to a better long term winning strategy), but government is not going to rake the pot. They are going to rake the cash out. This is true of tournment play as well, as you can deduct your gambling losses up to your gambling winnings (ie if you enter $1000 worth of tournaments and lose, no deduction, but if you enter $1000 worth of tournaments and win a total of $1500, you only get taxed on the $500 profit).
Rush poker is completely pointless. The order of blinds is based on how long it has been since you have been blinded (if you sit and think about your hands, you will be blinded much less often, because it is based on number of hands, not time). Meanwhile, the gameplay in rush poker is much, much more of an all-in or fold every hand mentality. You are playing lottery, not poker, and the level of skill is the roughly the same an indian poker (hold a card on your forehead without looking at it and bet whether or not its higher than your opponents).
There are several types of hands in poker - a few you fold immediately, a few you play no matter what, and then the majority are hands you gamble with. You decide based on how others are playing, how they react to your actions over time, how they adjust for chip stack sizes, how they react after a big hand win or lose), whether they carry emotion based on a specific type of play, whether they are affected by alcohol/food/length of time at the table, and so many, many other issues. It is rarely about cards. At an 8 person table, when 1 player doesn't know what they are doing and throws money around like an idiot on any cards, the other 7 players are excited; they are going to get paid. When 6 players do it, I leave the table because that is pretty much the same thing as 6 people at the same table colluding. They don't need to see each others cards to make my marginal hands worthless, they just bet me out by either never folding or always folding. If player A bets, player B raises, and player C acts after me and goes all in if Im still in the hand, the types of hands I can play drops dramatically and my presence at the table means a lot less, as do my cards.
Try this experiment in a live cash no limit texas holdem game (despite its modern popularity, its the only card game where you routinely find newcomers or players who never get beyond the basic concepts yet still play for money) with 2 people who know each other in an 8-10 handed table: Sit as far apart as you can to each other and neither of you look at your cards. Every nth hand (3 or 4 is best) excluding blinds (play blinds like you normally play hands), have player A raise to 4 or 5 times the blinds and have player B go all in unless someone else already has. If your opponents are good but not great (in my experience, about 80% of regular poker players), over time you will eke out a small profit, picking up pots as often as your opponents yet taking down the blinds a considerable portion of the time enough to outweigh the times you run into play no matter what hands. If your opponents are not good, you will get callers with things like suited connectors and ATC. Bear in mind that against semi-pro/professional players, you will lose because they will figure out what you are doing and you will not be adjusting to their game.
Now try the same thing online (you will have to put something on your screen so that you don't see the cards). 1000-1 that within an hour, several players will accuse you of cheating or of being a complete moron. Within a month, your IP address will be banned (because your betting pattern and the fact that you only play when you are across from someone will give you away, and you will not have a way to prove that you aren't looking at each other's cards). Meanwhile, you will not have made any money. Too many bad players online. That isn't to say that one cannot make money consistently playing poker online. Its just a different game. There is much less information, you play orders of magnitude more hands, individual decisions mean less and thus provide less information, so post flop play becomes much more important while the leverage you can apply with the exact same actions is diminished. Its great for learning as you get to see more types of playing styles more often, but you also never really play anyone great because you won't recognize what they are doing the first couple hundred times.
Bear in mind that playing reactively to another player isn't against the rules (no more
I, in fact, did read the original poster, and your response, to which I replied. The response that you posted to which I replied stated that copyright infringement is a criminal act (which I noted it generally is not) and that one person had been extradited for committing it (to which I pointed out that the extradition was for conspiracy, not infringement, and that it occurred because both governments involved agreed that extradition was the best way to capture a criminal). Your response had nothing to do with the UK or the US, and to claim a generalized statement was meant to mean something specific but completely different from the words posted and any meaning that could be derived is absurd.
Despite this, I will refute your new points, that are not related to the prior post.
Downloading is not distribution, nor is it for commercial purposes, and case law has shown that making available is not copyright infringement nor in and of itself, a criminal or civil act.
As for your last sentence, I am going to have to repeat myself, because you seem to have ignored a large portion of my response.
Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is a criminal act if the conspiracy would reasonably be harmful to society. Conspiracy against a private organization could be seen as either civil or criminal, depending on the scope of the act. A blanket statement of criminal act when referring to copyright infringement is misleading at best, and fraudulent if done knowingly.
What part of this do you not understand?
IANAL, but I'm also willing to do five minutes of research before making claims of what I think is correct before making blanket statements based on wikipedia articles that I didn't read (a wikipedia article, by the way, which claims that the neutrality of the article is disputed since January 2008 despite the entirety of the article being factual information, which could only contain bias based on the reader, not based on the information contained). Copyright infringement is a generally not a criminal act (in order to be criminal, it has to include a profit motive, so using bittorent for personal use isn't going to land you in jail). Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is a criminal act if the conspiracy would reasonably be harmful to society. Conspiracy against a private organization could be seen as either civil or criminal, depending on the scope of the act. A blanket statement of criminal act when referring to copyright infringement is misleading at best, and fraudulent if done knowingly (although oddly enough, false accusations of copyright infringement is a civil act, as is false repudiation of claim that you own copyright to copyrighted materials for which you do not, unless of course, in either situation, as profit motive is provable, in which case it becomes a criminal act).
Griffiths (your cited example) was extradited for breaking terms of US copyright law, not the AUSTFA, at a time period when the two were not (for all intensive purposes) the same. It was determined by Australian courts that the US was the best place for prosecution because both the courts and executive government agreed that the actions had taken place under US jurisdiction. This was a consequence of bilateral arrangements between the US and Australia, but the charge was not copyright infringement, but rather conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Despite this, it took three years for such determination to be finalized, indicating that extradition is not something taken lightly by either government (it wasn't the US really wanted this, and Australia really fought back, it was that both the US and Australian government agreed he should have been tried for criminal actions but he could not be tried under the previous Australian law; and the value to society of prosecution in the US was deemed to be a better solution for society than failing to extradite). If Griffiths had been arrested under the exact same charges today, he would not have been extradited because AUSTFA has been updated to correlate more closely with US copyright law and he would be prosecuted in an Australian court.
I didn't mean the word itself was fake as in not real, I meant its use was improper for its meaning in context. Its more likely that the combination of majoritarian mythology, which is done for alliteration, rather than meaning, that brought me to my original conclusion, but since this isn't a psychology lecture, I won't go into the details of why you find something that didn't occur to be laughable.
Due to the limited number of posts per day, I'm going to stop responding to pointless and snarky off-topic comments, but if you would like try some others, feel free to browse the rest of the message board and then keep those thoughts to yourself.
A majoritarian electoral system is a simple electoral system which usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes (like British Parliament). This in context was not parent's intended use of the word, but rather to mean majority rule (which was the context to which I replied, and the reason i put 'majoritarian' in quotes). My assumption based on context is that parent heard the term also used improperly on some crappy television news program. Parent's use of majoritarian was improper, as parent meant educational rule by ochlocracy (mob rule), as opposed to the concept that you remember from college in your political science papers.
Its annoying to know that you read the word and treat it as a commonly used standard archetype, yet never bothered to learn what it meant.
History is an exercise in 'majoritarian' mythology (As a quick aside, please don't use these ridiculous news channel fear mongering fake words, they just make you sound stupid. You could easily have said something along the lines of belief in stories without first person accounts lining up with evidence). Wars determine not who is right, but rather who is left. Sure, today we may have more information about both sides of a war than say 10(00) years ago, but in some places, history really is whatever people say it is. I don't agree with knowingly teaching things that are incorrect (ie teaching creationism as science), but lets not pretend that even a best effort historical evidence based approach will give us a true view of history.
Bridge inspections are a vote on whether or not they are going to fall down. I can tell you from personal experience (I was 3 feet away from a bridge that fell at a NASCAR track in charlotte) that inspections don't determine whether or not a bridge will fall; it simply tells whether or not it is up to code. Our inspection system (bridge or otherwise) is based on level of failure. We keep a level of requirement for inspection, then when something fails while passing inspection, we change the requirements (regardless of whether or not the failure was due to items under inspection).
You sucked at it (well, you certainly didn't think). There is so much competition among trucking companies that I will get a better contract than they want to give me.
Yes, truck fleets have to compensate me for destruction of my physical goods, and any that I am going to consider will be licensed and bonded. As for MS compensating me for damages, I am quite certain that they would, if I were able to show that I had damages based on normal expected use of MS business software, yes, MS would be liable for damages that it should have expected. Under normal use, I can't think of any security flaws. If any should arise, the service contract is for MS to patch and fix any that might. In the history of mankind, however, you can show me a single time that a user's computer blew up because of the use of Office, I'm willing to bet that MS would pay to replace it.
Now, when you install the smiley progam or read an email attachment that says 'i love you' and so forth, and you end up having to reinstall your OS, that is your fault, not MS's.
That sounds like your fault, for failing reading comprehension m(especially since your situation is entirely different than what I called out).
I specifically pointed out that if you use googledocs (which would include openoffice), you could and should be penalized for not adhering to paper requirements.
You got marked down either because you didn't follow directions regarding formatting or your paper was not well written (which, having not met your professor or read your paper, I would assume the latter). The point of my calling bullshit however, was on the basis that students were being failed because a word doc shows up differently because of a different version of word on a different computer. Your issue where you used a different software program, rather than an older/newer version of a specific program, sounds like you deserved to be marked down.
If you want to claim that there were no software requirements for the class for an online course, I'm calling bullshit on you as well.
Furthermore, what the hell were you putting in an english paper that didn't work in the conversion from openoffice to word?
Would you tolerate that your floors could only be provided by ONE company and that it means no body else can put in a carpet without it breaking gravity? Would you allow your truck fleet to be provided by only ONE company and have that company know it?
If I could have a company come install carpet and break gravity, I would do so immediately. Then I would open weightless world. Who the hell wouldn't?
I would absolutely allow my truck fleet to be provided by one company. I would have them entered into a multi-year contract, with prices set at specified rates or linked to prevailing market rates (determined by an unrelated 3rd party) and have very strict delivery requirements with penalties enforceable to the effect of non-payment and the ability to end the contract as of a specific year or delivery (ie if delivery x is late, I don't pay for that delivery, and if y number of deliveries are late or aggregated late by a specified amount, I don't pay for any deliveries). This cancellation point will be set at a higher standard than I actually demand from my singular truck fleet. The fleet would in turn get a minimum required service level (number of deliveries I pay for whether I ask for that many or not) with pricing structure to their benefit when I need higher usage than a specified level. All of this would be determined annually based on my expected needs. Under contract law, if they were ever unable to provide the contracted service level, I could just get service on the open market at prevailing rates and charge off the difference between contract price and market price (it would be a slam dunk in court to collect, including court costs).
In short, you are missing a huge number of details about how I would enter into a long term contract.
MS is not all that different than truck fleets; the software is a service that I pay for based on usage. If I need 1000 seats, I pay more than if I need 100. There is nothing that is stopping me from getting competitive software (SAP for accounting, for example) on MS's end. If I can influence my clients (they really, really, need me to do the work and can't go to a competitor), maybe I can require that they use whatever I want them to use. Generally, I am going to have to put it in my client's preferred format (and make them provide me with the tools to do so if I don't have it). The industry standard is going to be word, excel, and powerpoint for the majority of companies because it is both easiest to use and train on, but also cheaper than most other formats (cost of training is often much more expensive than cost of software, even if free).
I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.
I'm calling bullshit.
The specified format that teachers/professors use is generally the format that the on campus computers use (if you are in high school, the format is printed, not electronic), so if you are a student, you have access to write your paper, save it in the appropriate format, and electronically convey it to the professor using your school email address. Or if you live off campus, you can write in the format of choice, send to your school email address, show up on campus, convert it from the text, and send it to your professor through email. Other teachers use turnitin or some other web based service that formats text for the recipient automatically. If you are taking online classes, the format for papers will be specified, and it is the student's fault, not Word, for failure to adhere to it.
As for using googledocs for a paper, if it has graphic requirements (charts, analysis, specified formating), the student can and should be penalized for not adhering to the requirements. This makes googledocs a non-solution. Think of it as training for the real world. If your boss wants a one page, double spaced, times new roman, 11 font summary of what you did this month, you damn better well not be surprised when you get fired for turning in a 4 page email complaint about how you wanted to use googledocs instead of wasting paper.
The unfortunate thing is that you want to blame Word for your personal failures.
I would assume because most of us have seen existing things and because of alcohol or inability to determine the differences at a glance (because the girlfriend was there and staring is unacceptable under such circumstances), we actually believe that digitally enhanced model is not only possible, but exists at the local pub.
By the way, you don't have to be married to find unattractive people as such. Most husbands didnt choose to get married because their wives rivaled models (in fact, relationships based on looks alone are either quite empty or about to end, or both).
On the other hand, when couples watch adult content, it often improves relationships. I don't know how to explain that, it must be biological. It even works if the heterosexual couple watches two girls go at it (I can't speak for whether watching two guys go at it helps a relationship, as I have neither scientific study nor personal experience).
I have no idea why you get depressed by the fact that technology allows us to create images of more perfect beings than ourselves...personally, I enjoy it.