If you were paying sales tax to another state, you'd have a point. The question is whether the merchant should be required to collect sales tax on behalf of YOUR state.
"The law is shaping up to be a legal test case challenging a 25-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits states from levying sales taxes on remote purchases."
Actually, the law says that states can't require SELLERS to COLLECT sales taxes in states where the seller doesn't have a presence ("nexus"). Virtually all states that have a sales tax also have a use tax which requires people to (in effect) pay sales tax on items they purchase out of state. Few people actually pay this, since enforcement is very difficult, but that doesn't change the obligation.
The question isn't whether you're obliged to pay tax on an out of state purchase - the question is whether the entity you're buying the product from is required to _collect_ that tax from you.
Howard stern brought those.... and the FCC targeted him only. So he moved to Sirius/XM and now has more subscribers than COMCAST has because it is outside the regulatory world of the FCC.
SiriusXM would be very surprised to hear they were outside of the regulatory world of the FCC, given that it's the FCC that assigned them the spectrum which they use to operate, and without exclusive rights to that spectrum, the service simply wouldn't work.
Well, they're going to spend around $17 billion on infrastructure ($11B capex, $6B infrastructure-related opex) this year, so it's not like they're standing still...
Who said that this needs labor? Labor should be less than 1% of the costs on these. As such, it should all be AUTOMATED.
A lot of it is. The point is that the part of the value chain that's in China is a tiny part of the actual value of the product. You say that Apple owns nothing of what's important. That's entirely untrue. They own the design and engineering of the product. The actual manufacturing production is a small portion of the value of the product.
Apple simply followed the same path by not only offshoring their manufacturing, but by giving it away. They own NOTHING of what is important.
Really? You think the commodity manufacturing activity that can be done by low-skilled labor is the important part of an iPhone? China only adds about $6-8 of the value of an iPhone. The vast majority of the value is added in the US, by the designers and engineers.
You can just not connect it to the network, and not use the apps. Personally, I prefer the apps on my TV to the ones on the Roku box I used to use, but that's certainly a matter of preference.
These days, it is possible to purchase a "book" that has no physical substance whatsoever. Ebooks are here to stay, and this is what I wonder.
If a person wanted to buy all those ebooks directly from the publisher, set up a digital lockout system to prevent simultanous viewing (to better approximate the book being physically checked out) do you suppose these author's guild types would consider the creation of such a digital library above board?
Absolutely. That's how an increasing number of library ebook deals are structured - essentially, the library pays per checkout.
Think of it this way. They let the payment go through, odds are 99.99% it's a joke. They make maybe $1 in fees. If it isn't a joke, and OFAC nails them, it's at minimum $100k in legal fees, potential penalties, and reputational problems. That's an expected value of $10. So, it becomes a bad bet.
If she says "please leave, this is the woman's bathroom" and he says, "I have every right to be here, the law says so, tough lady", don't be shocked if she shoots him in self defense.
I would be shocked if she shot someone who presented no risk to her in self-defense. A jury would be too. If your wife really is such a combination of irrational terror and unrestrained violence, I suggest you get her counseling, or you're only going to be able to see her on the other side of inch thick plexiglass pretty soon.
You've made an extraordinary claim, that a county sheriff (and only the county sheriff) can overrule federal law enforcement. The burden is on you to support that claim. You haven't done so.
Google will be happy to sell it to you...so long as you live in an area where construction is cheap and incomes are high enough to drive high penetration, and/or where the local government is willing to give Google a better deal on pole attachment, buildout requirements, etc. than the existing cable and Telco operators got.
So, out of curiosity, what legal source can you cite to support your belief that a county sheriff has the authority to require the Secret Service or FBI to disarm?
There is absolutely no reason to think I was talking about that.
Put away your AM radio, and stick to facts.
You were wrong in more ways than there are Latin insults to describe.
I am sticking to facts. If a county Sheriff tells the Secret Service to put their guns down, the Secret Service isn't going to comply. Period. That's the simple fact, and no matter how much you reference "Sovereign" status (capitalized or not), it's not going to change.
If the Sheriff of the County they're in (not a deputy, but the real Sheriff) tells them to put their guns down, the Secret Service have to comply. A Sheriff is the only type of law enforcement officer in the country, at any level, who has Sovereign control of physical security in their County.
There might be consequences later. But they would be on the other side of a court hearing. In the meantime, Sovereign is Sovereign.
Quick hint: this claim (that the county sheriff can overrule federal law enforcement) is wrong both de jure and de facto.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, the hacker sold the userids and pwds (something like 150 million) for about $1.
If you were paying sales tax to another state, you'd have a point. The question is whether the merchant should be required to collect sales tax on behalf of YOUR state.
"The law is shaping up to be a legal test case challenging a 25-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits states from levying sales taxes on remote purchases."
Actually, the law says that states can't require SELLERS to COLLECT sales taxes in states where the seller doesn't have a presence ("nexus"). Virtually all states that have a sales tax also have a use tax which requires people to (in effect) pay sales tax on items they purchase out of state. Few people actually pay this, since enforcement is very difficult, but that doesn't change the obligation.
The question isn't whether you're obliged to pay tax on an out of state purchase - the question is whether the entity you're buying the product from is required to _collect_ that tax from you.
Turns out, people who won't pay for content when they can find a way not to...won't pay for content when they can find a way not to.
Howard stern brought those.... and the FCC targeted him only. So he moved to Sirius/XM and now has more subscribers than COMCAST has because it is outside the regulatory world of the FCC.
SiriusXM would be very surprised to hear they were outside of the regulatory world of the FCC, given that it's the FCC that assigned them the spectrum which they use to operate, and without exclusive rights to that spectrum, the service simply wouldn't work.
Well, they're going to spend around $17 billion on infrastructure ($11B capex, $6B infrastructure-related opex) this year, so it's not like they're standing still...
Okey-dokey then.
I would argue that the point of Waze IS navigation, optimized for real-time conditions.
Who said that this needs labor? Labor should be less than 1% of the costs on these. As such, it should all be AUTOMATED.
A lot of it is. The point is that the part of the value chain that's in China is a tiny part of the actual value of the product. You say that Apple owns nothing of what's important. That's entirely untrue. They own the design and engineering of the product. The actual manufacturing production is a small portion of the value of the product.
Apple simply followed the same path by not only offshoring their manufacturing, but by giving it away. They own NOTHING of what is important.
Really? You think the commodity manufacturing activity that can be done by low-skilled labor is the important part of an iPhone? China only adds about $6-8 of the value of an iPhone. The vast majority of the value is added in the US, by the designers and engineers.
You can just not connect it to the network, and not use the apps. Personally, I prefer the apps on my TV to the ones on the Roku box I used to use, but that's certainly a matter of preference.
Actually, that's not how it works for paper books. Typical paper books lasts 30-40 "lend-outs" before it needs to be replaced.
These days, it is possible to purchase a "book" that has no physical substance whatsoever. Ebooks are here to stay, and this is what I wonder.
If a person wanted to buy all those ebooks directly from the publisher, set up a digital lockout system to prevent simultanous viewing (to better approximate the book being physically checked out) do you suppose these author's guild types would consider the creation of such a digital library above board?
Absolutely. That's how an increasing number of library ebook deals are structured - essentially, the library pays per checkout.
Think of it this way. They let the payment go through, odds are 99.99% it's a joke. They make maybe $1 in fees. If it isn't a joke, and OFAC nails them, it's at minimum $100k in legal fees, potential penalties, and reputational problems. That's an expected value of $10. So, it becomes a bad bet.
I never met an author who wrote because they had copyright protection
Then you've met damn few authors. Most authors have these things called bills, which require money to pay.
Yeah, that old corollary to cultural relativity... thing is, it no longer applies; people are getting dumber,
Except they're not.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Do you like Kipling?
I don't know, I've never kippled.
Hulu Plus with adblocking is far and away a better return on investment
Or, you could just pony up the extra $4/month for the ad-free version of Hulu.
You'll have to ask Christo for a price quote.
If she says "please leave, this is the woman's bathroom" and he says, "I have every right to be here, the law says so, tough lady", don't be shocked if she shoots him in self defense.
I would be shocked if she shot someone who presented no risk to her in self-defense. A jury would be too. If your wife really is such a combination of irrational terror and unrestrained violence, I suggest you get her counseling, or you're only going to be able to see her on the other side of inch thick plexiglass pretty soon.
You've made an extraordinary claim, that a county sheriff (and only the county sheriff) can overrule federal law enforcement. The burden is on you to support that claim. You haven't done so.
Google will be happy to sell it to you...so long as you live in an area where construction is cheap and incomes are high enough to drive high penetration, and/or where the local government is willing to give Google a better deal on pole attachment, buildout requirements, etc. than the existing cable and Telco operators got.
So, out of curiosity, what legal source can you cite to support your belief that a county sheriff has the authority to require the Secret Service or FBI to disarm?
There is absolutely no reason to think I was talking about that.
Put away your AM radio, and stick to facts.
You were wrong in more ways than there are Latin insults to describe.
I am sticking to facts. If a county Sheriff tells the Secret Service to put their guns down, the Secret Service isn't going to comply. Period. That's the simple fact, and no matter how much you reference "Sovereign" status (capitalized or not), it's not going to change.
If the Sheriff of the County they're in (not a deputy, but the real Sheriff) tells them to put their guns down, the Secret Service have to comply. A Sheriff is the only type of law enforcement officer in the country, at any level, who has Sovereign control of physical security in their County.
There might be consequences later. But they would be on the other side of a court hearing. In the meantime, Sovereign is Sovereign.
Quick hint: this claim (that the county sheriff can overrule federal law enforcement) is wrong both de jure and de facto.