Your source shows 1 year and mine shows 19 years. Your source is also only looking at benefits instead of total government spending. it isn't counting military spending, income from federal jobs, or farm subsidies. Your source also shows CA not bringing up the rear. Instead they are pretty much almost in the middle. That chart says CA gets $1.09 for every $1.00. More than half the states on that chart are getting more than that.
States are allowed to decide local taxes. They are allowed to have taxes lower than the taxes of another state. But when a state levels a tax on a particular thing they are not allowed to give discounts to in state businesses. In this case they were taxing investment income. Examples: Having zones with no property tax is legal. Giving bread growers a 0% income tax rate is legal. Giving bread growers cash is legal. A 6% sales tax on imported bread and 2% sales tax on local bread is illegal. (I'm not a lawyer)
The Commerce Clause is a free trade agreement between the states. A lower tax rate for local companies means a higher tax rate for out of state companies. Protecting local companies with taxes hurts out of state companies. Commerce Clause is there to prevent this exact scenario.
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Key words your ignoring: law, passing, and criminal. No law was passed. Instead a court invalidated a law. Thus when the people doing the action, they were not innocent. Second ex post facto only applies to criminal law. No tax payer is going to jail over this.
Californians pay more in federal taxes than they recieve from the federal goverment. The following map shows Federal Taxes minus spending on a state by state basis. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union Texas and Minnesota both pay more taxes than they recieve. The biggest debtor state in the union is Virginia.
This isn't a retroactive law. This is invalidation of a law by a court. California basically created a tarrif to promote local buisnesses. States are not allow to create terrifs. California had two options. They could send money to every out of state buisness that was damage by the tarrif. Or they could undo the benifit the in state buisnesses recieved. California is broke so they did the second thing.
Sony lost plenty of money when the store was down. Disk based games didn't sell because people wanted to play multiplayer. Consoles didn't sell because of the bad press. DLC and PSN games didn't sell because the store was down. After it came back up many people removed their credit card info and stopped buying DLC and PSN games.
Fine a drop in the bucket compared to the PSN store being down for several weeks. Games released when PSN down also did not sell well. They also purchased credit card theft insurance for all their users who had credit card info on PSN. They also had to give out free games to get people to bring back good will from users. So even without fine the market punished Sony quite a bit.
Another theory. Gender imbalance is a clue that some hiring is not based on skill and merit. One could test this by seeing if fields with greater gender imbalance have more ethical violations than similer fields with less imbalance.
I interprit this as follows. Gender imbalance in a field increases the likelyhood that that the biased for gender contains low quality employees. These people would not have their job in a fair job market. Likewise the other gender will contain higher quality people who were able to overcome the gender bias with exceptional skills.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that these structures can form because of telomeres. Telomeres are sections of DNA on the end that repeat the same code d(GGTTAG). They prevent damage to DNA sections that hold genes. So they are important for preventing cancer. Basically the telemeres at each end can bond with each other to form these quadruplex.
If you don't have an expensive lawyer then your trespassing. They are going arrest you first and then collect evidence. Expect vidoe of you getting in line and then leaving early. Expect testimony from the employees that you were with the protestors. The Judge is also going to allow Chick-fil-a to search your email and twitter acounts.
Under your definition most cyber crime isn't civil disobediance. Laws against DDOS, vandalism, and breaking into secure websites are not unjust. I would say removing DRM is good example of civil disobediance. So is sharing the secret info that wistleblowers release.
But, taking the example of 100 people getting in line at Chick-fil-a, how can you (as the store's management) tell the difference between a hungry customer and one who is participating in this coordinated attack, without waiting for them to get to the register and not order? Do you make it illegal to not order food? How would you even write a law to make such practice illegal?
They don't have too. They can just arrest anyone who doesn't order food or drops out of line before ordering food.
No Civil Disobedience is always about breaking the law. It is about challenging laws that are unjust by breaking them. By breaking the law and going to jail the protesters generate sympathy and discussion about the unjust law. The problem with Anon is that they are not breaking unjust laws with their DDOS. Laws against DDOS are fair and sensable. So they don't generate any sympathy when they get thrown in jail.
Nope you can totally get sued for what you just described. You can even go to jail. You can go to jail for loitering, disorderly conduct, or resisting arrest. You can be sued under RICO. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws are designed to prevent blackmail. Your standing in line protest is a form of blackmail.
Cuba has an embargo because they nationalized property owned by US citizens and corporations. I assume there wasn't much US investement in Thailand when it went communist. There was also that whole thing with the nuclear missles. I don't think Thialand has ever been a security risk to Florida and Texas.
Not sure about Skype but Yahoo voice chat and Facetime require the reciepient to have those applications installed on their phone. You can't make a Facetime call to an Android phone. You can't use Yahoo to call a flip phone. This allows call to any mobile phone number listed in Facebook.
There is no way for this service to work if Facebook doesn't have the reciepients number. Someone must have the recipients number in order for a connection to be created. Getting angry over that seems really irrational. Putting your phone number in Facebook is a step above putting it in the phonebook. At least with Facebook you can restrict viewing the info to friends or friends of friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the US federal debt has occurred in the last 20 years. looking further than that is silly.
Your source shows 1 year and mine shows 19 years. Your source is also only looking at benefits instead of total government spending. it isn't counting military spending, income from federal jobs, or farm subsidies. Your source also shows CA not bringing up the rear. Instead they are pretty much almost in the middle. That chart says CA gets $1.09 for every $1.00. More than half the states on that chart are getting more than that.
States are allowed to decide local taxes. They are allowed to have taxes lower than the taxes of another state. But when a state levels a tax on a particular thing they are not allowed to give discounts to in state businesses. In this case they were taxing investment income. Examples: Having zones with no property tax is legal. Giving bread growers a 0% income tax rate is legal. Giving bread growers cash is legal. A 6% sales tax on imported bread and 2% sales tax on local bread is illegal. (I'm not a lawyer)
19 years dammit. 2009 - 1990 = 19 I can't subtract anymore.
That shows the past year. One. Single. Numero Uno.
No it doesn't. It shows 9 years. Numero NINE. 1990 -> 2009
The Commerce Clause is a free trade agreement between the states. A lower tax rate for local companies means a higher tax rate for out of state companies. Protecting local companies with taxes hurts out of state companies. Commerce Clause is there to prevent this exact scenario.
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Key words your ignoring: law, passing, and criminal. No law was passed. Instead a court invalidated a law. Thus when the people doing the action, they were not innocent. Second ex post facto only applies to criminal law. No tax payer is going to jail over this.
Californians pay more in federal taxes than they recieve from the federal goverment. The following map shows Federal Taxes minus spending on a state by state basis. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
Texas and Minnesota both pay more taxes than they recieve. The biggest debtor state in the union is Virginia.
This isn't a retroactive law. This is invalidation of a law by a court. California basically created a tarrif to promote local buisnesses. States are not allow to create terrifs. California had two options. They could send money to every out of state buisness that was damage by the tarrif. Or they could undo the benifit the in state buisnesses recieved. California is broke so they did the second thing.
Sony lost plenty of money when the store was down. Disk based games didn't sell because people wanted to play multiplayer. Consoles didn't sell because of the bad press. DLC and PSN games didn't sell because the store was down. After it came back up many people removed their credit card info and stopped buying DLC and PSN games.
Fine a drop in the bucket compared to the PSN store being down for several weeks. Games released when PSN down also did not sell well. They also purchased credit card theft insurance for all their users who had credit card info on PSN. They also had to give out free games to get people to bring back good will from users. So even without fine the market punished Sony quite a bit.
Another theory. Gender imbalance is a clue that some hiring is not based on skill and merit. One could test this by seeing if fields with greater gender imbalance have more ethical violations than similer fields with less imbalance.
I interprit this as follows. Gender imbalance in a field increases the likelyhood that that the biased for gender contains low quality employees. These people would not have their job in a fair job market. Likewise the other gender will contain higher quality people who were able to overcome the gender bias with exceptional skills.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that these structures can form because of telomeres. Telomeres are sections of DNA on the end that repeat the same code d(GGTTAG). They prevent damage to DNA sections that hold genes. So they are important for preventing cancer. Basically the telemeres at each end can bond with each other to form these quadruplex.
Are you talking about horses or cows?
If you don't have an expensive lawyer then your trespassing. They are going arrest you first and then collect evidence. Expect vidoe of you getting in line and then leaving early. Expect testimony from the employees that you were with the protestors. The Judge is also going to allow Chick-fil-a to search your email and twitter acounts.
Under your definition most cyber crime isn't civil disobediance. Laws against DDOS, vandalism, and breaking into secure websites are not unjust. I would say removing DRM is good example of civil disobediance. So is sharing the secret info that wistleblowers release.
But, taking the example of 100 people getting in line at Chick-fil-a, how can you (as the store's management) tell the difference between a hungry customer and one who is participating in this coordinated attack, without waiting for them to get to the register and not order? Do you make it illegal to not order food? How would you even write a law to make such practice illegal?
They don't have too. They can just arrest anyone who doesn't order food or drops out of line before ordering food.
No Civil Disobedience is always about breaking the law. It is about challenging laws that are unjust by breaking them. By breaking the law and going to jail the protesters generate sympathy and discussion about the unjust law. The problem with Anon is that they are not breaking unjust laws with their DDOS. Laws against DDOS are fair and sensable. So they don't generate any sympathy when they get thrown in jail.
Nope you can totally get sued for what you just described. You can even go to jail. You can go to jail for loitering, disorderly conduct, or resisting arrest. You can be sued under RICO. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws are designed to prevent blackmail. Your standing in line protest is a form of blackmail.
Cuba has an embargo because they nationalized property owned by US citizens and corporations. I assume there wasn't much US investement in Thailand when it went communist. There was also that whole thing with the nuclear missles. I don't think Thialand has ever been a security risk to Florida and Texas.
Not sure about Skype but Yahoo voice chat and Facetime require the reciepient to have those applications installed on their phone. You can't make a Facetime call to an Android phone. You can't use Yahoo to call a flip phone. This allows call to any mobile phone number listed in Facebook.
There is no way for this service to work if Facebook doesn't have the reciepients number. Someone must have the recipients number in order for a connection to be created. Getting angry over that seems really irrational. Putting your phone number in Facebook is a step above putting it in the phonebook. At least with Facebook you can restrict viewing the info to friends or friends of friends.
GHDS - Group Hug Daughtercard Spec.
This shooters parents were divorced. How about we tax divorced people. Tax depictions of extramarital affairs.