Radio Shack's fiscal year ends December 31st. Circuit City's fiscal year ends February 28th. DNNC's fiscal year ends March 31st.
It's common and expected that retailers end their fiscal years a month or two late. Toys 'R' Us? February 1st. The Gap? February 1st. (Radio Shack is somewhat odd in this respect.)
Good accounting requires that Christmas rush, Christmas returns, post-Christmas "don't-make-me-inventory-this" sales and year-end inventory should all be counted in the same year.
DNNA's bean counters will not be amused. And they're Japanese, so expect seppuku rather than pink skips.
The law has changed fairly recently for ISPs with regard to the material they carry. A distinction has always been drawn between a common carrier (the post office isn't responsible for your hate mail; the phone company isn't responsible for your threatening calls) and another provider that has more control over the material.
The only case I know of that hits the issue head on is ALS Scans v. RemarQ, from the Fourth Circuit. http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALS_v_RemarQ.html
It's a good read. Flip through it and watch Judge Niemeyer try unsuccessfully to understand Usenet...
Slashdot Mirror
Radio Shack's fiscal year ends December 31st. Circuit City's fiscal year ends February 28th. DNNC's fiscal year ends March 31st.
It's common and expected that retailers end their fiscal years a month or two late. Toys 'R' Us? February 1st. The Gap? February 1st. (Radio Shack is somewhat odd in this respect.)
Good accounting requires that Christmas rush, Christmas returns, post-Christmas "don't-make-me-inventory-this" sales and year-end inventory should all be counted in the same year.
DNNA's bean counters will not be amused. And they're Japanese, so expect seppuku rather than pink skips.
The law has changed fairly recently for ISPs with regard to the material they carry. A distinction has always been drawn between a common carrier (the post office isn't responsible for your hate mail; the phone company isn't responsible for your threatening calls) and another provider that has more control over the material.
The only case I know of that hits the issue head on is ALS Scans v. RemarQ, from the Fourth Circuit. http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALS_v_RemarQ.html
It's a good read. Flip through it and watch Judge Niemeyer try unsuccessfully to understand Usenet...