The point is to discourage the TSA from taking this money. He had to pick some charity, and realistically, nobody is going to object to it being the USO.
When every Android device is now going to look alike, wouldn't the general customer base be a little more likely to buy an Android device from the company that *makes* Android?
Holo has to be installed. It doesn't have to be the default.
If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
Um... I'm not Canadian. But I agree with you, and so does American law. As I said in my previous post, under American law, ALL political contributions ARE out of pocket, and there's NO tax deduction for political contributions of any kind.
I disagree with automatic public financing of ridiculous candidates that I would never vote for. (And I should get to decide who is sufficiently non-ridiculous to receive my money.) If you're campaigning for something that I don't want, what makes it OK for you to reach your hand into my wallet?
That said, I'm also not Canadian, and my opinion on Canadian campaign finance reform law should matter very little. The reason I posted at all is because the article is about an American bill being debated by American elected officials. The concern you posed initially (eliminating the tax deduction enshrined in Canadian law for political contributions) wouldn't help THIS problem because donations to THESE elected officials are already not tax deductible.
Sorry, I should have read your post closer. Also, in American politics/tax law, corporations can't make political contributions directly, and no individual can give more than $2000 to a candidate per election cycle.
So for a company to donate $5 million to a candidate, and then write that off on their taxes, is illegal under three different parts of the tax law.
Yeah, that's what I meant too. Donating money to a candidates campaign, or a PAC, or a 527 group is not tax deductible in the US and never has been. A donation to a 501(c)(3) group (a public charity) is tax deductible.
If a 501(c)(3) uses donated funds to conduct political activities, that's tax fraud and members of the group can be sentenced to jail time.
Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
Perhaps the biggest thing that can be done is to drop the tax benefits that come from campaign contributions.
In America, political donations (of any kind: hard money, soft money, Super PACs, etc) are not tax deductible. You're theoretically supposed to go to jail if you use money that was donated to you under a tax deduction for political campaigning.
Caucuses are a bad idea to begin with. They value a better organized/paid for campaign over a better candidate. Also, why are Iowa and New Hampshire so special that they get to vote first and eliminate candidtes that may do better in other areas? The first primaries should be done on a rotating basis.
It's not though. It doesn't matter. Whenever the President/EPA has to make this decision, they will rule IN FAVOR of the pipeline, because denying it is a bad idea. From an economic perspective, the pipeline will absolutely create jobs here in America. From an environmental perspective, the Canadians are going to pump these tar sands and either transport it via land based pipeline to us or via oil tanker ship to China. EVERY land pipeline is safer than ANY oil tanker operation. The pipeline is the better option environmentally, too.
Obama wants to not get the union workers that would be working on this angry, but he wants to not make the environmentalists angry either. He's caught between two angry groups of his constituents, so his idea is to put off the decision until after the environmentalists and unions vote for him. The issue is that if the delay is too long, TransCanada is going to start selling the oil to the Chinese and build up that infrastructure to the point where the pipeline isn't worth it.
Saying Obama is AGAINST the pipeline is wrong. (He presumably wants a better economy and a safer ocean, right?) He's just against making the decision until it can't hurt him politically. Because that's the wrong decision, the Republicans were trying to get him to do the right thing, which is what he was going to do anyway.
Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.
the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska
Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.
to the Gulf
Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.
through protected wildlife refuges
Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.
Well, Mr. Ingenuous, the pipeline thing would require an up-or-down ruling on the Keystone Pipeline. (Obama's EPA is holding it up because it makes environmentalists mad despite being a good idea.) The Republican bill doesn't even require them to approve it. Calling that provision a subsidy (e.g., the owners of the pipeline getting some kind of monetary payment from the government) isn't ingenuous at all.
There's a lot of people here on Slashdot that DO blame MS for that. And even more out in the real world. Old devices being incompatible with the new driver model is the biggest reason why Vista is seen as a bad word in the eyes of your average computer buyer.
This isn't actually true. OPEN makes it harder to transfer money to sites that have been ruled "infringing" by a court. It doesn't include capabilities for takedowns, blocks from searches, etc. SOPA, on the other hand, could possibly require deep packet inspection to keep people off infringing sites.
Basically, OPEN only goes after commercial infringement, and only does so in a commercial way. I'm OK with that.
Interestingly, Democrats passed that law. They had the Senate when it was passed, and President William Jefferson Clinton signed it.
Imagine that. BILL CLINTON wanting to defend marriage. Anyway, I know this goes against the groupthink here at Slashdot, but Democrats passed that law too.
First off, do you have evidence that Grassley is corrupt? Because your normal standard of proof is HURF DURF HE HAS AN R NEXT TO HIS NAME SO OF COURSE HE'S CORRUPT.
There are people who are saying that the LightSquared is corrupt, and they are looking for help from the Obama administration, which is obviously not above corruption itself. Grassley, as the guy whose job it is to look into corruption in this part of the Obama administration, wants to look into it.
GPS has a more legitimate claim to the spectrum than these guys do. If they can co-exist, like the FCC claims they can, then good for them. But if they can't coexist, and the FCC is making these claims because LightSquared is owned by big time Obama donors, then which side in this is corrupt?
Big Time Obama Donors are trying to get approval from the Obama FCC for something that might conflict with GPS. The Big Time Obama Donors are accused of exerting inappropriate political pressure on the FCC. The Republican in charge of FCC oversight wants to hold a hearing to check and make sure that the thing doesn't conflict with GPS (and that the FCC wasn't inappropriately pressured.)
Only a hack can read that and see "Republicans are evil." This is a pretty textbook example of the Legislative Branch acting as a check on the Executive Branch. This is EXACTLY how things are supposed to work.
Because it says right in the summary that this could mess with GPS, and Grassley wants to make sure it doesn't because GPS is an important piece of military technology?
Nowadays [the private copying levy] also applies to blank CDs and DVDs.
Just so you know, if you're in the US, this isn't true. Blank "music" CDs are subject to this tax, but blank "computer" CDs are not. Since a CD-R is a CD-R is a CD-R, companies only make blank "computer" CDs, and nobody pays this tax. In the US, the law never applied to video content at all, so DVD-Rs are also not included.
I inferred that you were from the US because you were worried about the MPAA and RIAA, which are American organizations. If you're not from America, my apologies.
What? Nobody DID care about Torvalds' opinions then. (Hell, wait for the next time he criticizes Stallman. There's plenty of people on Slashdot who don't care about Torvalds' opinion NOW.)
Torvalds didn't have an opinion. He didn't have solidarity. He had an ALTERNATIVE. He (and others) put in the time to produce something. When you and the other stanlybs out there can say the same, you'll get taken seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is to discourage the TSA from taking this money. He had to pick some charity, and realistically, nobody is going to object to it being the USO.
When every Android device is now going to look alike, wouldn't the general customer base be a little more likely to buy an Android device from the company that *makes* Android?
Holo has to be installed. It doesn't have to be the default.
If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
Um... I'm not Canadian. But I agree with you, and so does American law. As I said in my previous post, under American law, ALL political contributions ARE out of pocket, and there's NO tax deduction for political contributions of any kind.
I disagree with automatic public financing of ridiculous candidates that I would never vote for. (And I should get to decide who is sufficiently non-ridiculous to receive my money.) If you're campaigning for something that I don't want, what makes it OK for you to reach your hand into my wallet?
That said, I'm also not Canadian, and my opinion on Canadian campaign finance reform law should matter very little. The reason I posted at all is because the article is about an American bill being debated by American elected officials. The concern you posed initially (eliminating the tax deduction enshrined in Canadian law for political contributions) wouldn't help THIS problem because donations to THESE elected officials are already not tax deductible.
So for a company to donate $5 million to a candidate, and then write that off on their taxes, is illegal under three different parts of the tax law.
If a 501(c)(3) uses donated funds to conduct political activities, that's tax fraud and members of the group can be sentenced to jail time.
Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
Perhaps the biggest thing that can be done is to drop the tax benefits that come from campaign contributions.
In America, political donations (of any kind: hard money, soft money, Super PACs, etc) are not tax deductible. You're theoretically supposed to go to jail if you use money that was donated to you under a tax deduction for political campaigning.
Caucuses are a bad idea to begin with. They value a better organized/paid for campaign over a better candidate. Also, why are Iowa and New Hampshire so special that they get to vote first and eliminate candidtes that may do better in other areas? The first primaries should be done on a rotating basis.
You know you can mute individual players, right?
Obama wants to not get the union workers that would be working on this angry, but he wants to not make the environmentalists angry either. He's caught between two angry groups of his constituents, so his idea is to put off the decision until after the environmentalists and unions vote for him. The issue is that if the delay is too long, TransCanada is going to start selling the oil to the Chinese and build up that infrastructure to the point where the pipeline isn't worth it.
Saying Obama is AGAINST the pipeline is wrong. (He presumably wants a better economy and a safer ocean, right?) He's just against making the decision until it can't hurt him politically. Because that's the wrong decision, the Republicans were trying to get him to do the right thing, which is what he was going to do anyway.
guaranteeing
Lie: The Republican proposal guaranteed a RULING up or down within 90 days, but did not guarantee approval.
the oil companies can build a pipeline from Alaska
Lie: The Northern end of the pipeline is in Canada.
to the Gulf
Half-lie: The pipeline goes to endpoints in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the eastern coast of Texas. Though the eastern coast of Texas borders the Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline is obviously not dumping oil directly into the Gulf. But thanks for trying to tie a land pipeline to oceanic oil spills.
through protected wildlife refuges
Lie: TransCanada already rerouted the pipeline around the refuges in question.
Amazing lie density. I'm impressed.
Well, Mr. Ingenuous, the pipeline thing would require an up-or-down ruling on the Keystone Pipeline. (Obama's EPA is holding it up because it makes environmentalists mad despite being a good idea.) The Republican bill doesn't even require them to approve it. Calling that provision a subsidy (e.g., the owners of the pipeline getting some kind of monetary payment from the government) isn't ingenuous at all.
No, the Dems took that out of the bill. The year long tax holiday the Republicans passed included a cut to congressional pay.
The Republicans (and apparently the President) wanted the tax holiday extended all year. The Democrats talked them down to two months.
New study confirms the safety of FIRST POST
Ron Paul doesn't have any convictions. Batshit insane isn't illegal yet, and even if it was we'd need to have a trial before he gets convicted.
There's a lot of people here on Slashdot that DO blame MS for that. And even more out in the real world. Old devices being incompatible with the new driver model is the biggest reason why Vista is seen as a bad word in the eyes of your average computer buyer.
Basically, OPEN only goes after commercial infringement, and only does so in a commercial way. I'm OK with that.
Imagine that. BILL CLINTON wanting to defend marriage. Anyway, I know this goes against the groupthink here at Slashdot, but Democrats passed that law too.
Ataris weren't, but the NES originally were. The 10NES chip was a lockout device protected by patent and copyright.
There are people who are saying that the LightSquared is corrupt, and they are looking for help from the Obama administration, which is obviously not above corruption itself. Grassley, as the guy whose job it is to look into corruption in this part of the Obama administration, wants to look into it.
GPS has a more legitimate claim to the spectrum than these guys do. If they can co-exist, like the FCC claims they can, then good for them. But if they can't coexist, and the FCC is making these claims because LightSquared is owned by big time Obama donors, then which side in this is corrupt?
Big Time Obama Donors are trying to get approval from the Obama FCC for something that might conflict with GPS. The Big Time Obama Donors are accused of exerting inappropriate political pressure on the FCC. The Republican in charge of FCC oversight wants to hold a hearing to check and make sure that the thing doesn't conflict with GPS (and that the FCC wasn't inappropriately pressured.)
Only a hack can read that and see "Republicans are evil." This is a pretty textbook example of the Legislative Branch acting as a check on the Executive Branch. This is EXACTLY how things are supposed to work.
Because it says right in the summary that this could mess with GPS, and Grassley wants to make sure it doesn't because GPS is an important piece of military technology?
Nowadays [the private copying levy] also applies to blank CDs and DVDs.
Just so you know, if you're in the US, this isn't true. Blank "music" CDs are subject to this tax, but blank "computer" CDs are not. Since a CD-R is a CD-R is a CD-R, companies only make blank "computer" CDs, and nobody pays this tax. In the US, the law never applied to video content at all, so DVD-Rs are also not included.
I inferred that you were from the US because you were worried about the MPAA and RIAA, which are American organizations. If you're not from America, my apologies.
Torvalds didn't have an opinion. He didn't have solidarity. He had an ALTERNATIVE. He (and others) put in the time to produce something. When you and the other stanlybs out there can say the same, you'll get taken seriously.
Bush had Congressional authorizations for those wars. Unlike Lybia, I might add.