What service does the state provide that justifies charging a sales tax rate to out-of-state-businesses comparable to those of in-state businesses? While there is some use--i.e. the roads--for the most part the out-of-state business requires fewer state resources, and the state is not justified in collecting that tax on the basis of the business presence. That being said, sales taxes are formally taxes on people, which makes them superior in certain ways to income taxes--because they're closer to taxing *consumption*. Thus the state taxes the consumption of things consumed within the state. The problem with this, of course, is that it isn't nearly so redistributive as the income tax; the advantage is that it actually taxes monies other than ordinary income.
There was a lot of talk of that--one of the nice things about the book that they left out of the movie was that you had to do public service, but that didn't require you to give military service.
And don't confuse critical or academic acclaim with quality, either. The two are often inversely proportional to one another--although not nearly so inversely proportional as quality of writing and being an academically successful literary critic, insofar as my admittedly anecdotal experiences reading big-name literary critics suggests.
I have always wanted to read more litcrit, just to further confirm and better-defend the position that it tends to be horrific.
Nobody says "go f* yourself" to their CO, especially not when the penalty for doing so is getting shot--and if everyone were to do so, the penalty for doing so would be getting shot.
The bigger issue is ensuring that people with political clout have a vested interest in young people not getting killed. As it is, the military is primarily filled by the ranks of the economically disadvantaged, and even the modestly wealthy can avoid service.
One solution is the draft. Another might be, for example, requiring each board of a publicly listed company to have a least one veteran on it.
Actually, this is worse than usual--the definition of the willfulness requirement for criminal copyright, technically ambiguous for about a century, will make it absolutely clear that a massive percentage of the American population--even those who have never shared a file in their life--will be felons.
"Americans" as a whole don't think anything, except on extremely rare occasions. Certain Americans believe, mistakenly, that a Republic is a Democracy.
IIRC, Caesar's dictatorship represented the fall of the Republic. Ah yes--Wikipedia indicates that the demarcation between the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire is a little hand-wavy, but that Caesar's appointment as permanent dictator is one of the classic identified moments.
I can see them charging more based on what animal is used. "What? They're growing sperm in mice? We will grow your sperm in Lion testicles for the low price of $50,000."
"Democracy" when describing America is usually used these days to refer to something vaguely resembling a democratic republic, where the electorate in swing states gets to vote for national leadership and everyone else gets to vote for state leadership. Most of the voting decision is actually delegated to two political parties--almost all of it is in state elections. Similar systems exist in other "democracies" I am aware of, although there are some significant variations (the number of parties, for example, or the option of votes of no confidence).
This is unfortunate--there is a great deal that is quite wrong in the world, that is in effect only available on a pull-basis. I met a guy at a panel discussion a few months ago who had been personally tortured by Kaderov, the governor of Chechneya for Moscow. Why the hell do we waste so much time on what they put on the news, when you could actually be reporting that kind of thing on the news? Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.
Actually, you can claim due process is met everywhere--it's just that what it means varies somewhat from place to place. While on the one hand this does seem facially to be a violation of equal protection, it does have significant advantages in that it allows the Supreme Court, when it considers what law should be for the whole country, to see what other intelligent courts have done in the same situation and what the consequences of that have been. (Sort of an analog to the "States as laboratories" argument). The alternative is to divide the circuits according to jurisprudence. That has some advantages (which is why they do it with the Federal Circuit), but it also has major disadvantages (positions become more ideologically and precedentially entrenched, judges have more power, and SCOTUS no longer has the benefit of looking to see how different legal standards have worked before it makes a decision about what policy should be for the country as a whole).
It is also worth noting that true equal protection is impossible without massive cross-subsidization and radical policy change throughout government. But the ideals of equal protection as conceived in the Fourteenth Amendment are far exceeded today.
substance abuse in professional sports is so high that it is not entirely accurate to consider the sports a display of human skill--although not super-modified-cyborg-humans, they're as close as they can be without being detected by drug screenings
Here was a CNN story reflecting a Congressional Probe into misrepresentations to donors over the 9/11 funding. For example.
I did not say they didn't do good work--I said I'd heard that they were incredible unethical in their donor practices.
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
Fine, it's complicated. Does that give you a right to lie to someone to get their money? There's a word for that: fraud. Fraud for a good cause is still fraud. Do they engage in it? I don't know. But I've heard bad things, and that makes me more likely to donate elsewhere. It's not like there's a shortage of public interest causes that need support.
Three times the cost of typical, maybe, but it still makes sense in certain places.
Hawaii, for example, has a typical 30c rate. The bigger issue is that most of the locals can't afford the capital to do the installation in the first place.
Courtney's House is good--small local shelter in DC for trafficking victims. Or Talk to Polaris Project, either to donate to them or to ask where the closest place to you is that offers safe shelter for trafficking victims--there aren't many in the country, compared with tens of thousands of victims.
In the alternative, look for someplace that is underfunded and does good work. Unpopular but important causes, for example--legal aid, or someplace that does legal or psych aid for criminal defendants. Or find an agency that does legal aid for asylum seekers--unpopular, but incredibly important, because when it's wrongly denied, we're sending someone home to a country where they're at high risk for political persecution.
Do not give to the red cross. They have lots of money and I have heard that their fundraising practices are unethical. I've heard this from people who have worked there and from others--that they basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing. This is hearsay, but I have heard it from more than one individual, and there are so many good and less well-known charities that need support that it makes no sense to give to them.
It's not that they're incapable, it's that they have little incentive to do so. They spend all their time fundraising, and SOPA brings in funds. So for them to not support it, it would have to be something that they would actually lose a decisive number of votes for. Guess what? Everyone intelligent has now heard of it and knows it's bad, but even most of them won't stop voting for the incumbent in their own district.
Hell, at $20M, a bunch of corporations or even private individuals might be willing to pick it up. It would have been worth our buying it to keep China from having one for a year.
Saying something on the box doesn't necessarily make it a legal obligation. It has to be analyzed under principles of contract law. That doesn't mean that saying something on the box doesn't expose the company to false advertising liability, which is different law.
On the warranty, if they are obligated to repair it, then they probably can't break it in order to repair it--unlike SONY, which is not obligated to provide access, but will allow access if they can break it. At least, that's the argument.
On the third point, surely they could break it with your permission? "We will service your motherboard if we can take your video card." That is the analogy that the court seems to buy.
No motive at all--I just glanced at the opinion. And I am not saying Sony did the right thing, ethically. Or that their action was non-criminal, as I certainly haven't spent the time to figure that out. I have just noted the reason why this case came out as it did.
Undeclared my ass. It's in the media, it's widely known, and pretty much the only rule is not to do something to the other side's infrastructure that kills people directly or gets too much of the population upset. That's like calling the intelligence war undeclared because the sides don't admit that they try to get plans of the other side's military hardware--only more so. We don't declare war, and this isn't a physical war, and there are certain proportionality requirements--and we argue for a pretension of deniability, but not plausible deniability.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an attack; it's a response to an attack. It's a settlement in response to the threat of an unfavorable legal action.
What service does the state provide that justifies charging a sales tax rate to out-of-state-businesses comparable to those of in-state businesses? While there is some use--i.e. the roads--for the most part the out-of-state business requires fewer state resources, and the state is not justified in collecting that tax on the basis of the business presence. That being said, sales taxes are formally taxes on people, which makes them superior in certain ways to income taxes--because they're closer to taxing *consumption*. Thus the state taxes the consumption of things consumed within the state. The problem with this, of course, is that it isn't nearly so redistributive as the income tax; the advantage is that it actually taxes monies other than ordinary income.
Meh. I'm not going to think about this now.
There was a lot of talk of that--one of the nice things about the book that they left out of the movie was that you had to do public service, but that didn't require you to give military service.
Do not confuse popularity with quality.
And don't confuse critical or academic acclaim with quality, either. The two are often inversely proportional to one another--although not nearly so inversely proportional as quality of writing and being an academically successful literary critic, insofar as my admittedly anecdotal experiences reading big-name literary critics suggests.
I have always wanted to read more litcrit, just to further confirm and better-defend the position that it tends to be horrific.
Nobody says "go f* yourself" to their CO, especially not when the penalty for doing so is getting shot--and if everyone were to do so, the penalty for doing so would be getting shot.
The bigger issue is ensuring that people with political clout have a vested interest in young people not getting killed. As it is, the military is primarily filled by the ranks of the economically disadvantaged, and even the modestly wealthy can avoid service.
One solution is the draft. Another might be, for example, requiring each board of a publicly listed company to have a least one veteran on it.
Actually, this is worse than usual--the definition of the willfulness requirement for criminal copyright, technically ambiguous for about a century, will make it absolutely clear that a massive percentage of the American population--even those who have never shared a file in their life--will be felons.
"Americans" as a whole don't think anything, except on extremely rare occasions. Certain Americans believe, mistakenly, that a Republic is a Democracy.
IIRC, Caesar's dictatorship represented the fall of the Republic. Ah yes--Wikipedia indicates that the demarcation between the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire is a little hand-wavy, but that Caesar's appointment as permanent dictator is one of the classic identified moments.
The Roman Republic began five centuries earlier.
I can see them charging more based on what animal is used. "What? They're growing sperm in mice? We will grow your sperm in Lion testicles for the low price of $50,000."
It is important to note that the Supreme Court's ruling was nonprecedential--it applied only to that one election, that one time.
"Democracy" when describing America is usually used these days to refer to something vaguely resembling a democratic republic, where the electorate in swing states gets to vote for national leadership and everyone else gets to vote for state leadership. Most of the voting decision is actually delegated to two political parties--almost all of it is in state elections. Similar systems exist in other "democracies" I am aware of, although there are some significant variations (the number of parties, for example, or the option of votes of no confidence).
The only fair way to have decided it (other than a re-run) would have been a coin toss or equivalent.
We are not going to determine the next President of the United States by a coin toss.
This is unfortunate--there is a great deal that is quite wrong in the world, that is in effect only available on a pull-basis. I met a guy at a panel discussion a few months ago who had been personally tortured by Kaderov, the governor of Chechneya for Moscow. Why the hell do we waste so much time on what they put on the news, when you could actually be reporting that kind of thing on the news? Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.
Actually, you can claim due process is met everywhere--it's just that what it means varies somewhat from place to place. While on the one hand this does seem facially to be a violation of equal protection, it does have significant advantages in that it allows the Supreme Court, when it considers what law should be for the whole country, to see what other intelligent courts have done in the same situation and what the consequences of that have been. (Sort of an analog to the "States as laboratories" argument). The alternative is to divide the circuits according to jurisprudence. That has some advantages (which is why they do it with the Federal Circuit), but it also has major disadvantages (positions become more ideologically and precedentially entrenched, judges have more power, and SCOTUS no longer has the benefit of looking to see how different legal standards have worked before it makes a decision about what policy should be for the country as a whole).
It is also worth noting that true equal protection is impossible without massive cross-subsidization and radical policy change throughout government. But the ideals of equal protection as conceived in the Fourteenth Amendment are far exceeded today.
How so?
Is the fact that it is flying out of small-arms fire somehow unusual? Why wouldn't our resupply helicopters already fly high?
substance abuse in professional sports is so high that it is not entirely accurate to consider the sports a display of human skill--although not super-modified-cyborg-humans, they're as close as they can be without being detected by drug screenings
Here was a CNN story reflecting a Congressional Probe into misrepresentations to donors over the 9/11 funding. For example.
I did not say they didn't do good work--I said I'd heard that they were incredible unethical in their donor practices.
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
Fine, it's complicated. Does that give you a right to lie to someone to get their money? There's a word for that: fraud. Fraud for a good cause is still fraud. Do they engage in it? I don't know. But I've heard bad things, and that makes me more likely to donate elsewhere. It's not like there's a shortage of public interest causes that need support.
Three times the cost of typical, maybe, but it still makes sense in certain places.
Hawaii, for example, has a typical 30c rate. The bigger issue is that most of the locals can't afford the capital to do the installation in the first place.
Plenty of people who don't take drugs have original ideas.
Also, I saw a sign at the Rally to Restore Sanity that read "Retired CIA Analysts for a Sensible Drug Policy"
Time is better, but money is important too.
Courtney's House is good--small local shelter in DC for trafficking victims. Or Talk to Polaris Project, either to donate to them or to ask where the closest place to you is that offers safe shelter for trafficking victims--there aren't many in the country, compared with tens of thousands of victims.
In the alternative, look for someplace that is underfunded and does good work. Unpopular but important causes, for example--legal aid, or someplace that does legal or psych aid for criminal defendants. Or find an agency that does legal aid for asylum seekers--unpopular, but incredibly important, because when it's wrongly denied, we're sending someone home to a country where they're at high risk for political persecution.
Do not give to the red cross. They have lots of money and I have heard that their fundraising practices are unethical. I've heard this from people who have worked there and from others--that they basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing. This is hearsay, but I have heard it from more than one individual, and there are so many good and less well-known charities that need support that it makes no sense to give to them.
It's not that they're incapable, it's that they have little incentive to do so. They spend all their time fundraising, and SOPA brings in funds. So for them to not support it, it would have to be something that they would actually lose a decisive number of votes for. Guess what? Everyone intelligent has now heard of it and knows it's bad, but even most of them won't stop voting for the incumbent in their own district.
Hell, at $20M, a bunch of corporations or even private individuals might be willing to pick it up. It would have been worth our buying it to keep China from having one for a year.
Military preparedness is not something that you do in case everything goes according to plan.
Saying something on the box doesn't necessarily make it a legal obligation. It has to be analyzed under principles of contract law. That doesn't mean that saying something on the box doesn't expose the company to false advertising liability, which is different law.
On the warranty, if they are obligated to repair it, then they probably can't break it in order to repair it--unlike SONY, which is not obligated to provide access, but will allow access if they can break it. At least, that's the argument.
On the third point, surely they could break it with your permission? "We will service your motherboard if we can take your video card." That is the analogy that the court seems to buy.
No motive at all--I just glanced at the opinion. And I am not saying Sony did the right thing, ethically. Or that their action was non-criminal, as I certainly haven't spent the time to figure that out. I have just noted the reason why this case came out as it did.
Undeclared my ass. It's in the media, it's widely known, and pretty much the only rule is not to do something to the other side's infrastructure that kills people directly or gets too much of the population upset. That's like calling the intelligence war undeclared because the sides don't admit that they try to get plans of the other side's military hardware--only more so. We don't declare war, and this isn't a physical war, and there are certain proportionality requirements--and we argue for a pretension of deniability, but not plausible deniability.