I bet it's cause Apple decided to pick thru the code line by line in a desperate attempt to find something, anything they could use against Google -- either a reason to deny the app or even better, sue them for some patent or copyright infringement.
It's ridiculous to say that online retailers shouldn't have to collect taxes in states in which they have a presence. Sorry Amazon, if that's what you're fighting for you're going to lose as those terms are spelled out in the Constitution and by federal Congressional powers. States have no ability to repeal such statutes.
What states CAN do, and what has been the crux of the issue (I think), is in redefining what constitutes a "presence". And this is where things get very grey and murky. Trying to get affiliates declassified as a "presence" certainly isn't unconstitutional. It's constitutionally-questionable to consider them as a presence to begin with. Traditionally a presence required just that -- a physical presence in the state -- a warehouse, and office, a distribution center, etc; NOT just some kind of affiliation with someone else doing business from the state in question.
I suspect this issue is going to wind up in SCOTUS's hands. Typically one could guarantee the corporate entity would win considering how deep SCOTUS is in Corporate America's pockets, but this issue has corporate giants on both sides of the battle so there is no way of predicting which way it'll go.
Well DUH! These are the same dumbfucks that think corporations are people, Walmart can't be sued because it might bankrupt them (break the law ok, go bankrupt after you get sued, nu-uh!), and that individuals can't file class action lawsuits against service providers but instead must use their arbiters instead (cause we all know that THEIR arbiters are fair and balanced, right. Surrrrre...)
So it is any surprise that this ruling makes no fucking sense either?
Doesn't he realize that it's an honor to be shit on daily by Emperor Jobs and his taskmasters for near-minimum wage and no benefits? Only a select few are considered worthy of the privilege of being an iSlave.
Don't be surprised if Darth Jobs sends a SWAT team to your house or goes all Force death grip on you the next time you show up for work. Silly mortal, he clearly doesn't know who he's dealing with.
Please get Jim Lee to stop redesigning costumes. It's not 1994 anymore. And I'm really sick to death of seeing Wonder Woman drawn as a lesbian cowgirl hooker. Just stop already.
Reading comprehension fail. I already said if it's a GPL issue that's something different. The OP was ranting about he is using someone else's work in his emulator which I pointed out is both legal and the definition of an emulator.
Your blatant racism aside, despite what our bastardized copyright laws say I don't see anything wrong with playing a 10-30 year old console game in an emulator, even if *gasp* you didn't buy it. Even more so if it's a game that's currently not available for a modern platform.
And what if I actually *DO* own the games I play in an emulator? Then it's absolutely positively 100% LEGAL.
The position is that 1.) emulators are LEGAL, and 2.) by definition they are based on someone else's work. His certainly aren't the first, and the won't be the last. You need to take a nice long shit to expel whatever climbed up your ass and died.
Now if there's a GPL licensing issue that's something of another story. But that has nothing to do with your retarded imbecilic tirade.
I didn't say I liked the idea, I only said that it would be highly inefficient, and as such shouldn't be done if for no other reason than it wouldn't have the desired effect. If someone wants to get to the Pirate Bay badly enough they'll figure out how to do it, as it's only a Google search away.
Ahh, I see, now that they've pretty much given up trying to fight piracy they're setting their sights on the LEGAL sales of previously-owned games. Hey douchebags, why not just make great games and sell them at a reasonable price? No one wants to spend $60 on a steaming pile of horse turd, which is over 90% of the shovelware that publishers are putting out these days. Most of them aren't even worth buying used. And then they are totally flabbergasted why no one wants to buy their shit.
As someone who owns two dead laptops due to Nvidia's negligence I get NOTHING because the laptops I own aren't one of the models that's part of the suit. So while they may bitch and moan about getting a cheap laptop I wouldn't mind having it simply because IT WORKS. Which is more than I have now.
No, you misunderstand. Pay an extra $5 to get an *additional* block of data just for the tablet, not have the tablet share the same data block as your phone. While it would be nice for carriers to allow us to share data plans with multiple devices I don't expect that to ever happen.
Yeah, it would be better if you could buy the blocks of download data and they stay good till they're used up, much like how many pay-as-you-go phone plans work. You buy a data card for $15 and it's good for 250 MBs, use it whenever till it's gone. Even if they make you buy a new card every 90 days that's better than every month.
The problem with going 3G is the price of the associated data plan. It's ridiculous to spend $500 on a tablet and then have to spend another $40 a month to use it. I already have a smartphone with a data plan. Why should I have to pay twice?
If carriers offered a $5 "extra" you could tack onto your phone plan for a tablet, ok, then *maybe*. But anything more than that and it's too much. And while I imagine there are going to be people who regularly use their tablets in places where there is no wifi, I don't think that's the majority of tablet users.
So honestly, wifi tablet + smartphone tether is the way to go until carriers smarten up and stop trying to bleed us dry.
I disagree. I think the motivating factor behind dickish moves like this is because those $60 games aren't selling well at all and they're trying to recoup losses by gutting the used game market.
Yes, there are always people that will buy tons of $60 games, but their numbers are shrinking and publishers are trying whatever they can to stem the hemorrhaging without having to actually acknowledge their business model isn't going to be sustainable for much longer.
In an age when the sustainability of the $60 console games is in question do these idiots really think it's such a great idea to drive more nails into the coffin?
They all go to the same place as blacksmiths, horse and buggy manufacturers, oil lamp manufacturers, smoke signal and telegraph operators, pony express riders, court jesters, vaudevillians, hieroglyphics artists, papyrus salesmen, and a multitude of other defunct professions you ignorant buffoon.
If the Review-Journal was something more than a mouthpiece for the GOP maybe they'd be able to actually sell papers and wouldn't need to resort to illegal lawsuits to stay afloat. I lived in Vegas for 2 years and this rag wasn't even good enough to line the litter box.
Hey Yosemite Sherm, maybe if you made even the slightest attempt at being neutral in your NEWS SECTIONS people might actually want to read your swill of a paper.
"A use tax is a type of excise tax levied in the United States. It is assessed upon otherwise 'tax free' tangible personal property purchased by a resident of the assessing state for use, storage or consumption of goods in that state (not for resale), regardless of where the purchase took place. The use tax is typically assessed at the same rate as the sales tax that would have been owed (if any) had the same goods been purchased in the state of residence. Use tax applies when sales tax has not been charged. Purchases made over the Internet and out-of-state are the most common type of transactions subject to a use tax."
The difference is that the state is directly collecting use taxes from its residents, which is legal. When you try to shift that burden to out-of-state retailers it becomes illegal because the collection of those taxes crosses state lines. Capice?
But the Constitution clearly states you cannot tax interstate commerce. Changing that would require changing the Constitution -- and that takes a lot more than a simple bill.
Yes, but this is the whole reason why they have never previously taxed orders from out-of-state. Not because they didn't want to, but because the Constitution forbade it. So this bill will be nothing more than an end-run around the Constitution, which of cause will ultimately fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it's cause Apple decided to pick thru the code line by line in a desperate attempt to find something, anything they could use against Google -- either a reason to deny the app or even better, sue them for some patent or copyright infringement.
Cause y'know, if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
It's ridiculous to say that online retailers shouldn't have to collect taxes in states in which they have a presence. Sorry Amazon, if that's what you're fighting for you're going to lose as those terms are spelled out in the Constitution and by federal Congressional powers. States have no ability to repeal such statutes.
What states CAN do, and what has been the crux of the issue (I think), is in redefining what constitutes a "presence". And this is where things get very grey and murky. Trying to get affiliates declassified as a "presence" certainly isn't unconstitutional. It's constitutionally-questionable to consider them as a presence to begin with. Traditionally a presence required just that -- a physical presence in the state -- a warehouse, and office, a distribution center, etc; NOT just some kind of affiliation with someone else doing business from the state in question.
I suspect this issue is going to wind up in SCOTUS's hands. Typically one could guarantee the corporate entity would win considering how deep SCOTUS is in Corporate America's pockets, but this issue has corporate giants on both sides of the battle so there is no way of predicting which way it'll go.
Well DUH! These are the same dumbfucks that think corporations are people, Walmart can't be sued because it might bankrupt them (break the law ok, go bankrupt after you get sued, nu-uh!), and that individuals can't file class action lawsuits against service providers but instead must use their arbiters instead (cause we all know that THEIR arbiters are fair and balanced, right. Surrrrre...)
So it is any surprise that this ruling makes no fucking sense either?
Doesn't he realize that it's an honor to be shit on daily by Emperor Jobs and his taskmasters for near-minimum wage and no benefits? Only a select few are considered worthy of the privilege of being an iSlave.
Don't be surprised if Darth Jobs sends a SWAT team to your house or goes all Force death grip on you the next time you show up for work. Silly mortal, he clearly doesn't know who he's dealing with.
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult admirers of lesbian cowgirl hookers.
Please get Jim Lee to stop redesigning costumes. It's not 1994 anymore. And I'm really sick to death of seeing Wonder Woman drawn as a lesbian cowgirl hooker. Just stop already.
This is going to be a mess of epic proportions.
Reading comprehension fail. I already said if it's a GPL issue that's something different. The OP was ranting about he is using someone else's work in his emulator which I pointed out is both legal and the definition of an emulator.
Your blatant racism aside, despite what our bastardized copyright laws say I don't see anything wrong with playing a 10-30 year old console game in an emulator, even if *gasp* you didn't buy it. Even more so if it's a game that's currently not available for a modern platform.
And what if I actually *DO* own the games I play in an emulator? Then it's absolutely positively 100% LEGAL.
The position is that 1.) emulators are LEGAL, and 2.) by definition they are based on someone else's work. His certainly aren't the first, and the won't be the last. You need to take a nice long shit to expel whatever climbed up your ass and died.
Now if there's a GPL licensing issue that's something of another story. But that has nothing to do with your retarded imbecilic tirade.
I didn't say I liked the idea, I only said that it would be highly inefficient, and as such shouldn't be done if for no other reason than it wouldn't have the desired effect. If someone wants to get to the Pirate Bay badly enough they'll figure out how to do it, as it's only a Google search away.
And what's to stop people from using a DNS server that's outside the US? Or even just punching in the IP address directly?
Ahh, I see, now that they've pretty much given up trying to fight piracy they're setting their sights on the LEGAL sales of previously-owned games. Hey douchebags, why not just make great games and sell them at a reasonable price? No one wants to spend $60 on a steaming pile of horse turd, which is over 90% of the shovelware that publishers are putting out these days. Most of them aren't even worth buying used. And then they are totally flabbergasted why no one wants to buy their shit.
As someone who owns two dead laptops due to Nvidia's negligence I get NOTHING because the laptops I own aren't one of the models that's part of the suit. So while they may bitch and moan about getting a cheap laptop I wouldn't mind having it simply because IT WORKS. Which is more than I have now.
No, you misunderstand. Pay an extra $5 to get an *additional* block of data just for the tablet, not have the tablet share the same data block as your phone. While it would be nice for carriers to allow us to share data plans with multiple devices I don't expect that to ever happen.
Who who pays for tethering??? I know AT&T *wants* you to pay, but that doesn't mean you have to or should.
Yeah, it would be better if you could buy the blocks of download data and they stay good till they're used up, much like how many pay-as-you-go phone plans work. You buy a data card for $15 and it's good for 250 MBs, use it whenever till it's gone. Even if they make you buy a new card every 90 days that's better than every month.
The problem with going 3G is the price of the associated data plan. It's ridiculous to spend $500 on a tablet and then have to spend another $40 a month to use it. I already have a smartphone with a data plan. Why should I have to pay twice?
If carriers offered a $5 "extra" you could tack onto your phone plan for a tablet, ok, then *maybe*. But anything more than that and it's too much. And while I imagine there are going to be people who regularly use their tablets in places where there is no wifi, I don't think that's the majority of tablet users.
So honestly, wifi tablet + smartphone tether is the way to go until carriers smarten up and stop trying to bleed us dry.
I disagree. I think the motivating factor behind dickish moves like this is because those $60 games aren't selling well at all and they're trying to recoup losses by gutting the used game market.
Yes, there are always people that will buy tons of $60 games, but their numbers are shrinking and publishers are trying whatever they can to stem the hemorrhaging without having to actually acknowledge their business model isn't going to be sustainable for much longer.
In an age when the sustainability of the $60 console games is in question do these idiots really think it's such a great idea to drive more nails into the coffin?
They all go to the same place as blacksmiths, horse and buggy manufacturers, oil lamp manufacturers, smoke signal and telegraph operators, pony express riders, court jesters, vaudevillians, hieroglyphics artists, papyrus salesmen, and a multitude of other defunct professions you ignorant buffoon.
If the Review-Journal was something more than a mouthpiece for the GOP maybe they'd be able to actually sell papers and wouldn't need to resort to illegal lawsuits to stay afloat. I lived in Vegas for 2 years and this rag wasn't even good enough to line the litter box.
Hey Yosemite Sherm, maybe if you made even the slightest attempt at being neutral in your NEWS SECTIONS people might actually want to read your swill of a paper.
From Wikipedia:
"A use tax is a type of excise tax levied in the United States. It is assessed upon otherwise 'tax free' tangible personal property purchased by a resident of the assessing state for use, storage or consumption of goods in that state (not for resale), regardless of where the purchase took place. The use tax is typically assessed at the same rate as the sales tax that would have been owed (if any) had the same goods been purchased in the state of residence. Use tax applies when sales tax has not been charged. Purchases made over the Internet and out-of-state are the most common type of transactions subject to a use tax."
The difference is that the state is directly collecting use taxes from its residents, which is legal. When you try to shift that burden to out-of-state retailers it becomes illegal because the collection of those taxes crosses state lines. Capice?
But the Constitution clearly states you cannot tax interstate commerce. Changing that would require changing the Constitution -- and that takes a lot more than a simple bill.
Yes, but this is the whole reason why they have never previously taxed orders from out-of-state. Not because they didn't want to, but because the Constitution forbade it. So this bill will be nothing more than an end-run around the Constitution, which of cause will ultimately fail.
I'd really like to see how he's gonna do this and not run afoul of the Constitutional prohibition on taxing interstate commerce.