And yet most individuals pay more income tax than Apple.
irrelevant emotional reasoning. There is no reason anyone should pay more taxes than is legally required. NZ doesn't require taxes from Apple, because the tax laws says that Apple owes nothing. Again, if you don't like the laws, change them.
You can correct tax laws by taxing velocity of money, not the profits. Why should we care if a business makes or loses money in order to pay taxes?
Think of it this way, velocity (transference of money) would circumvent the paper shuffling of money between wholly owned entities to avoid taxes on profits. Instead, efficiency of capital would be the end result of "taxes". Those that save money, invested money would win, those that spend money as fast as they made it, would end up losing.
And since Employment is also a goal, I would exempt normal payroll from said velocity taxes, so that it was only "business to business" money flows that would be taxed.
I'm ALL for standardized testing in America where it has true consequences for the student.
I am against standardized testing of student. But not for the reasons you might think.
1) Standardized testing isn't about students, it is about educators. 2) Standardized testing is a holdover to standardized education (Industrial). We are no longer in industrial society, and our ancient educational processes need updating... big time 3) Standardized testing fails because it doesn't affect grades, so by the time kids reach Jr High, they stop caring and don't even bother trying
In short, Standardized testing looks good on paper, but fails in real life. Or, as my dad used to say...
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not
I'm sorry? Stupid laws have stupid unintended consequences that end up being worse for everyone because we can't "disadvantage" certain classes. The net result (and a function of Liberalism) is that EVERYONE is equally disadvantaged in the end.
And thus, the playing field is level, because we cripple everyone, so that those that are crippled don't feel bad. And that is fair.
Filed under "This is why we can't have nice things"
Shipping and distribution have specific legal meanings. A "shop" on site is still "distributing" even when it isn't "shipping". Further, transferring material between two warehouses is "Shipping" without "Distributing". The ONLY time they are applied together is when the "Shipment" is going to someone else's control, and where shipping / distribution terms such as FOB are used to designate when the transfer of ownership takes place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for more details on various terms / meanings.
The way I actually read the text the last verb "packing" is what is exempt. The "shipment or distribution" should read as parenthetical clarification of what is being "packed"
, packing (for shipment or distribution).
But since it is unclear in total (the reason for this case) the "historical" interpretation should be the one that remains, until the legislature fixes its intention by clarifying said law/regulation.
If the meaning of the sentence is ambiguous, and the judge recognized it as being ambiguous, then the judge shouldn't be able to rule in either direction. That would be completely unfair to the losing party. Which it is. And it wouldn't matter which party actually lost, it is "unfair".
The correct legal path is "how has it been interpreted in the past". Once THAT is established, then the onus is on the ones asking for the court to change the interpretation to make their case. Since it is ambiguous in total, that is an impossible task to reach tort level preponderance of evidence required for change, since historically it has been interpreted in a particular way.
After that, the court could revert the case back to the legislature for clarification by proper change in statute for clarity (and/or change) in rendering of the sentence.
The judge overstepped his authority here. It isn't his/her job to fix bad language in law, it is to apply the law fairly and equitably.
I can't afford Jewelry that tells time, and functionality isn't needed. And yes, winding watches... I haven't seen one in forever. Except for the nice antique pocketwatch I have.
I haven't worn a watch in nearly 12 years. My last watch battery died, and the batter cost more than the watch did originally. I thought I'll see if I miss it.
A few days later, my tan came back.
A month later, I stopped "missing" it on my wrist.
A year later passed and... I didn't even care.
Twelve years later, I still have clocks all around me telling me what time it is. Often atomically accurate to within milliseconds. And I don't miss a wrist clock at all.
I'll give you my case. On my way to / from work, I pass the most expensive grocery store in my town. I do not shop there normally, but if we need one to 4 items, I'll shop there, even though I'll spend a few extra bucks doing so. It is literally 100 ft off the road. I won't order things on Amazon just because "i forgot".
I know liberals who don't go the same effort because "waste of time" or whatever excuse, and order from Amazon, and have it on their doorstep the next day. Meanwhile they complain daily about AGW, Dakota Access, Big Oil.... never once considering the fact that they themselves can spend an extra moment stoppign at one of the stores they pass by, because it isn't convenient enough.
If you are REALLY concerned with BigOil / AGW and the "Endless War for Oil", you'd reduce your fossil fuel use to ZERO (or as close as you can get) before you tell everyone else to do the same thing.
I can't tell you how many liberals I know use Amazon Delivery for something they forgot at the store... because they are too lazy and can't wait till the next time they drive by.
Rich Liberals who love to tell us the world is burning/melting because of AGW, but still fly around the world on private jets to private islands and gated communities, who arrive in three car SUV entourages.
The only authentic liberal I know of is Ed Begley, who lives like he preaches. I don't agree with him on much, but at least he does what he says.
Again MSDOS supported what the hardware provided. While 640KiB is the "accepted" limit in the IBM PC due to hardware design MSDOS and the IBM derivative IBM DOS supports up to the limit of real-mode hardware address space - which is 1MiB on the 8086
While I will agree with the technical bits for the 8086 (1 MB addressable) the problem wasn't the memory limit, the problem was the memory limit was fenced in by putting the "reserve" in the upper bounds, and not the lower bounds. Had the 0-384 range been set aside bios/video whatever, and 385-1024 set aside for "program space", they would have had a lot better chance at being able to address RAM above 1024 when 286 came out.
I blame IBM engineers who designed the memory space upside down for convenience. And not, BTW, Bill Gates who did not say anything about 640k Being enough for everyone.
I know, because I was there back in the day, playing on the first computer that was able to address more than 640K due to its own quirks... the IBM PCjr But then again, I had to buy PCjr versions of programs because... it was really that quirky.
Length Requirements are easy if you start using a variety of different lengthening techniques. You only need to use one of them.
Lets say your normal password is:Passw0rd! Your bank: firstbankofslashdotPassw0rd! Your work: whereIworkPassw0rd! You work requires password rotation monthlywith no repeats ever: whereIworkPassw0rd!201701,
The idea is that you have a pattern that is easy to remember, but hard for computers to guess.
Additionally, it is my opinion that the most dangerous thing about passwords is actually changing them.
It was all allusion and guilty by association and clearly designed to do one thing. Link Trump to Russia hacking the election. The left wing used the whole narrative being driven by the MSM led by the NYT.
I am not a shill for Trump, but I am enjoying popcorn watching the Democrats and the media try to twist this whole episode as something other than it actually is.
As more is revealed, the likelier it is actually DNC, MSM, CIA hack job trying to keep Trump out of office, by criminal actions, orchestrated out of the Obama Administration. Not that any leftwinger would believe Hillary, Obama and the Democrats are capable of stealing an election... (sorry Bernie)
So, what you're saying is Misleading Sensationalist Headline from NYT is the problem? I would agree. Perhaps the NYT should be more responsible about how they write headlines.;)
So, you're using the "Plausible deniability" clause that Obama didn't actually order the wiretaps, in the same way that a Mob boss didn't actually order the hit on his rival.
So, by the same token, Trump didn't order his people to talk with Russians, so he is innocent too. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
And yet most individuals pay more income tax than Apple.
irrelevant emotional reasoning. There is no reason anyone should pay more taxes than is legally required. NZ doesn't require taxes from Apple, because the tax laws says that Apple owes nothing. Again, if you don't like the laws, change them.
You can correct tax laws by taxing velocity of money, not the profits. Why should we care if a business makes or loses money in order to pay taxes?
Think of it this way, velocity (transference of money) would circumvent the paper shuffling of money between wholly owned entities to avoid taxes on profits. Instead, efficiency of capital would be the end result of "taxes". Those that save money, invested money would win, those that spend money as fast as they made it, would end up losing.
And since Employment is also a goal, I would exempt normal payroll from said velocity taxes, so that it was only "business to business" money flows that would be taxed.
I'm ALL for standardized testing in America where it has true consequences for the student.
I am against standardized testing of student. But not for the reasons you might think.
1) Standardized testing isn't about students, it is about educators. ... big time
2) Standardized testing is a holdover to standardized education (Industrial). We are no longer in industrial society, and our ancient educational processes need updating
3) Standardized testing fails because it doesn't affect grades, so by the time kids reach Jr High, they stop caring and don't even bother trying
In short, Standardized testing looks good on paper, but fails in real life. Or, as my dad used to say ...
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not
Education begets better employment
Maybe in some cases, but you said that as an absolute, in which case it is a false statement of sentimentality.
True education adds value to life, not just employment. Not all education is suited for employment.
I'm sorry? Stupid laws have stupid unintended consequences that end up being worse for everyone because we can't "disadvantage" certain classes. The net result (and a function of Liberalism) is that EVERYONE is equally disadvantaged in the end.
And thus, the playing field is level, because we cripple everyone, so that those that are crippled don't feel bad. And that is fair.
Filed under "This is why we can't have nice things"
Shipping and distribution have specific legal meanings. A "shop" on site is still "distributing" even when it isn't "shipping". Further, transferring material between two warehouses is "Shipping" without "Distributing". The ONLY time they are applied together is when the "Shipment" is going to someone else's control, and where shipping / distribution terms such as FOB are used to designate when the transfer of ownership takes place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for more details on various terms / meanings.
The way I actually read the text the last verb "packing" is what is exempt. The "shipment or distribution" should read as parenthetical clarification of what is being "packed"
, packing (for shipment or distribution).
But since it is unclear in total (the reason for this case) the "historical" interpretation should be the one that remains, until the legislature fixes its intention by clarifying said law/regulation.
If the meaning of the sentence is ambiguous, and the judge recognized it as being ambiguous, then the judge shouldn't be able to rule in either direction. That would be completely unfair to the losing party. Which it is. And it wouldn't matter which party actually lost, it is "unfair".
The correct legal path is "how has it been interpreted in the past". Once THAT is established, then the onus is on the ones asking for the court to change the interpretation to make their case. Since it is ambiguous in total, that is an impossible task to reach tort level preponderance of evidence required for change, since historically it has been interpreted in a particular way.
After that, the court could revert the case back to the legislature for clarification by proper change in statute for clarity (and/or change) in rendering of the sentence.
The judge overstepped his authority here. It isn't his/her job to fix bad language in law, it is to apply the law fairly and equitably.
I, was taught, to use, the Shatner Comma.
I can't afford Jewelry that tells time, and functionality isn't needed. And yes, winding watches ... I haven't seen one in forever. Except for the nice antique pocketwatch I have.
I haven't worn a watch in nearly 12 years. My last watch battery died, and the batter cost more than the watch did originally. I thought I'll see if I miss it.
A few days later, my tan came back.
A month later, I stopped "missing" it on my wrist.
A year later passed and ... I didn't even care.
Twelve years later, I still have clocks all around me telling me what time it is. Often atomically accurate to within milliseconds. And I don't miss a wrist clock at all.
I'll give you my case. On my way to / from work, I pass the most expensive grocery store in my town. I do not shop there normally, but if we need one to 4 items, I'll shop there, even though I'll spend a few extra bucks doing so. It is literally 100 ft off the road. I won't order things on Amazon just because "i forgot".
I know liberals who don't go the same effort because "waste of time" or whatever excuse, and order from Amazon, and have it on their doorstep the next day. Meanwhile they complain daily about AGW, Dakota Access, Big Oil .... never once considering the fact that they themselves can spend an extra moment stoppign at one of the stores they pass by, because it isn't convenient enough.
If you are REALLY concerned with BigOil / AGW and the "Endless War for Oil", you'd reduce your fossil fuel use to ZERO (or as close as you can get) before you tell everyone else to do the same thing.
certainly we can use less of them
I can't tell you how many liberals I know use Amazon Delivery for something they forgot at the store ... because they are too lazy and can't wait till the next time they drive by.
Rich Liberals who love to tell us the world is burning/melting because of AGW, but still fly around the world on private jets to private islands and gated communities, who arrive in three car SUV entourages.
The only authentic liberal I know of is Ed Begley, who lives like he preaches. I don't agree with him on much, but at least he does what he says.
Guestimation of ranges based on no science what-so-ever. Good one.
The whole Russians Hacked the Elections story line, which was false from the beginning, and now we know the extent of that lie.
Made for great fodder against Trump for the last 9 months though. Great coverup for the Democrats being incapable of securing anything.
Qualitative vs Quantitative subjective determination!
Looks down at my Android phone ... and blinks
Again MSDOS supported what the hardware provided. While 640KiB is the "accepted" limit in the IBM PC due to hardware design MSDOS and the IBM derivative IBM DOS supports up to the limit of real-mode hardware address space - which is 1MiB on the 8086
While I will agree with the technical bits for the 8086 (1 MB addressable) the problem wasn't the memory limit, the problem was the memory limit was fenced in by putting the "reserve" in the upper bounds, and not the lower bounds. Had the 0-384 range been set aside bios/video whatever, and 385-1024 set aside for "program space", they would have had a lot better chance at being able to address RAM above 1024 when 286 came out.
I blame IBM engineers who designed the memory space upside down for convenience. And not, BTW, Bill Gates who did not say anything about 640k Being enough for everyone.
I know, because I was there back in the day, playing on the first computer that was able to address more than 640K due to its own quirks ... the IBM PCjr But then again, I had to buy PCjr versions of programs because ... it was really that quirky.
OMG , I am stealing it. !!!!
Length Requirements are easy if you start using a variety of different lengthening techniques. You only need to use one of them.
Lets say your normal password is:Passw0rd!
Your bank: firstbankofslashdotPassw0rd!
Your work: whereIworkPassw0rd!
You work requires password rotation monthlywith no repeats ever: whereIworkPassw0rd!201701,
The idea is that you have a pattern that is easy to remember, but hard for computers to guess.
Additionally, it is my opinion that the most dangerous thing about passwords is actually changing them.
It was all allusion and guilty by association and clearly designed to do one thing. Link Trump to Russia hacking the election. The left wing used the whole narrative being driven by the MSM led by the NYT.
I am not a shill for Trump, but I am enjoying popcorn watching the Democrats and the media try to twist this whole episode as something other than it actually is.
As more is revealed, the likelier it is actually DNC, MSM, CIA hack job trying to keep Trump out of office, by criminal actions, orchestrated out of the Obama Administration. Not that any leftwinger would believe Hillary, Obama and the Democrats are capable of stealing an election ... (sorry Bernie)
So, what you're saying is Misleading Sensationalist Headline from NYT is the problem? I would agree. Perhaps the NYT should be more responsible about how they write headlines. ;)
http://static.snopes.com/app/u...
http://static.snopes.com/app/u...
So, you're using the "Plausible deniability" clause that Obama didn't actually order the wiretaps, in the same way that a Mob boss didn't actually order the hit on his rival.
So, by the same token, Trump didn't order his people to talk with Russians, so he is innocent too. Right?
Pedantic shortsighted hypocrisy.