Except that isn't what they are asking for. The tax would be applied by customs (just like they apply all the other import duties) upon import - no store would need to know about it at all.
No, their claim is essentially correct. It's just that the title and summary is a complete fabrication.
It has nothing to do with "online" is has to do with "overseas". GST (a point of sale tax) isn't applied to personal imports of $1000.
It doesn't matter if you ordered "online" from amazon.com, or picked up the phone and ordered "on telephone", or if you used the postal service to mail a paper order form.
So foreign stores have an advantage over non-foreign stores in that they don't have to add 10% to the price. Clearly that means less efficient foreign businesses will be able to outcompete more efficient local businesses, which does exactly harm the local economy. This is essentially a subsidy for forign stores.
It's similar (though not the same as) states in the US not being able to apply their sales tax to orders from other states. It's different because it's a Federal level tax and there's no consititutional reason that customs can't apply a 10% tax (like they do with more expensive items)
There's a link to the definition in the first four words of the article. Do you want every peice of writing to repeat the definitions of every term it uses?
No it doesn't. 3% is more than enough for some casino games. And you can just get a group of precogs together and vote to increase the gain anyway (well assuming they aren't "linked" somehow so that their right predictions are in lock-step with one another).
That'd be remarkably stupid, since they could just visit casinos and pull in a million dollars every couple of days. At least until the casinos run out of money.
So the rules of engagement include shooting at unarmed people?
I have no problem at all with the initial shooting, I can see that there was a perceived threat (and quite possibly a real threat - I don't know what happened just before). Sure it turns out to have been a mistake, but that happens (heck friendly fire happens).
I just can't see a justification for the second attack. Not because they should have seen the kids, but because there was no threat. I seem to recall the gunner begging the buy to pick up a weapon so he could shoot him, and then when he didn't shooting him anyway - though it's been a while and I don't actually care enough to watch it again.
Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for, found, or viewed material, that might relate to methods used by the murderer?
Of course not. It is however, reasonable to include that amongst other evidence to make a case.
Is the fact that you were at the location of a murder reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you had threatened thevictim previously reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you are the registered owner of a weapon that fires the same type of bullet that they found in the victim reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that there is gun shot residue on your clothes reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
What about if all those items are true, is that reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Would police have made such a deal of simple searches, if they were done by looking up books on the subject at the library? Would a list of books checked out seriously be used to convict an alleged suspect?
Of course amongst all the other evidence. It's pretty usual for no single piece of evidence be enough to convict you - but the combination of all the evidence to be enough.
he consented to letting them look so a warrant was unnessicary
Since he's clearly and idiot it's likely it was ust icing and they had him on other stuff anyway...
But, jeeezusss... You don't consent to searches when you haven't done anything (that you know of) wrong. Now if you actually have just recently murdered someone and that is what they are investigating the answer you give seems pretty damn clear - and it doesn't contain the word "yes".
No, scientists in many fields (and some of which you would expect the opposite) do not understand statistics well.
If you dig through your well gathered data you will find correlations that are purely chance. Which is why you are supposed to be looking for the predetermined correlation not just any correlation. But when you've spend a lot of time and effort gathering a set of data, digging into it to find other things seems like a reasonable plan - and as long as you do another completely separate data gathering study to check what you find it is (but there's a great pressure to publish something now since you just spent a huge wad of cash and your performance is measured by what you publish not by actual scientific progress).
Scientists do this. Traders at investment banks (and elsewhere) do this. People just do this.
"Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb is a good look into this from the trading perspective. Assuming you don't mind his writing style, "ego-centric and pompous" is a common description (though I don't find it so).
I'm pretty sure investment banking is dominated by "rightoids" which nullifies your ridiculous injection of politics into the universal human bias to see patterns in randomness.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that isn't what they are asking for. The tax would be applied by customs (just like they apply all the other import duties) upon import - no store would need to know about it at all.
No, their claim is essentially correct. It's just that the title and summary is a complete fabrication.
It has nothing to do with "online" is has to do with "overseas". GST (a point of sale tax) isn't applied to personal imports of $1000.
It doesn't matter if you ordered "online" from amazon.com, or picked up the phone and ordered "on telephone", or if you used the postal service to mail a paper order form.
So foreign stores have an advantage over non-foreign stores in that they don't have to add 10% to the price. Clearly that means less efficient foreign businesses will be able to outcompete more efficient local businesses, which does exactly harm the local economy. This is essentially a subsidy for forign stores.
It's similar (though not the same as) states in the US not being able to apply their sales tax to orders from other states. It's different because it's a Federal level tax and there's no consititutional reason that customs can't apply a 10% tax (like they do with more expensive items)
Buffering of packets, "network path" can't be refering to anything else.
There's a link to the definition in the first four words of the article. Do you want every peice of writing to repeat the definitions of every term it uses?
They'll never believe anything that doesn't support their position anyway, and you can't prove something that can vanish at any moment isn't there...
because measuring "true" cardinal directions is so simple, compared with measuring magnetic north.
Oh wait...
No it doesn't. 3% is more than enough for some casino games. And you can just get a group of precogs together and vote to increase the gain anyway (well assuming they aren't "linked" somehow so that their right predictions are in lock-step with one another).
You're an idiot who both doesn't know the difference between autism and ADHD and knows nothing about children or medicine. Congratulations!
As a few days ago: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/01/02/1244210/Why-Published-Research-Findings-Are-Often-False
That'd be remarkably stupid, since they could just visit casinos and pull in a million dollars every couple of days. At least until the casinos run out of money.
Said chopper was likely far enough away for noise not to be an issue.
But no, they shouldn't wait until the RPG is fired at them (or the infantry they are supporting) before shooting.
So the rules of engagement include shooting at unarmed people?
I have no problem at all with the initial shooting, I can see that there was a perceived threat (and quite possibly a real threat - I don't know what happened just before). Sure it turns out to have been a mistake, but that happens (heck friendly fire happens).
I just can't see a justification for the second attack. Not because they should have seen the kids, but because there was no threat. I seem to recall the gunner begging the buy to pick up a weapon so he could shoot him, and then when he didn't shooting him anyway - though it's been a while and I don't actually care enough to watch it again.
And the guy in the van that rendered assistance to the wounded guy? What did he and his kids have that looked like weapons?
Of course not. It is however, reasonable to include that amongst other evidence to make a case.
Is the fact that you were at the location of a murder reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you had threatened thevictim previously reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you are the registered owner of a weapon that fires the same type of bullet that they found in the victim reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that there is gun shot residue on your clothes reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
What about if all those items are true, is that reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Of course amongst all the other evidence. It's pretty usual for no single piece of evidence be enough to convict you - but the combination of all the evidence to be enough.
It's the same ritual as uninviting a vampire. I suggest you find some gypsies.
Sure if you ignore the key phrase in the statement, "holed up in a compound", you can twist it to mean whatever you like.
Unless you think everybody that libes in "flyover" country is holed up in a compound, which I guess would make you the ignorant asshole?
Since he's clearly and idiot it's likely it was ust icing and they had him on other stuff anyway...
But, jeeezusss... You don't consent to searches when you haven't done anything (that you know of) wrong. Now if you actually have just recently murdered someone and that is what they are investigating the answer you give seems pretty damn clear - and it doesn't contain the word "yes".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hcbaeKA2moE#t=2147s
Jump to 37:20 for the money shot.
What does any of that have to do with an investment bank investing capital in a company?
It is after all the definition of what they do every day.
And yes, they are trying to make a buck and acting in their own private interest - that's how capitalism is supposed to work.
2 * 6 = 12
3 * 4 = 12
How many are in yours?
The price is the same, so most people won't bother.
I sometimes do just to remove a middle man from any disputes/issues that might arise, one less place for a screw up.
You're an idiot, congratulations.
No, scientists in many fields (and some of which you would expect the opposite) do not understand statistics well.
If you dig through your well gathered data you will find correlations that are purely chance. Which is why you are supposed to be looking for the predetermined correlation not just any correlation. But when you've spend a lot of time and effort gathering a set of data, digging into it to find other things seems like a reasonable plan - and as long as you do another completely separate data gathering study to check what you find it is (but there's a great pressure to publish something now since you just spent a huge wad of cash and your performance is measured by what you publish not by actual scientific progress).
Scientists do this. Traders at investment banks (and elsewhere) do this. People just do this.
"Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb is a good look into this from the trading perspective. Assuming you don't mind his writing style, "ego-centric and pompous" is a common description (though I don't find it so).
I'm pretty sure investment banking is dominated by "rightoids" which nullifies your ridiculous injection of politics into the universal human bias to see patterns in randomness.
If you're black you might disagree.
And what are you proposing replaced the car in the last few years?