It is necessarily true? Well, no. I am aware of no law, policy, or requirement that would prevent it. Not to say that there is not. So each company would be the legally registered owner of the other. But if that happened, the boards of directors would be the de facto owners. These are not the memetics you're looking for.
Did you not read? I clearly said that it probably isn't many, but why would you want to send any jobs anywhere merely because the corporation wants to avoid tax liability, which the corporation is already passing off to real people?
Uh.. even if the corporation had no rights (and I don't believe they should) the individuals that make it up do have rights.
So, while a warrant should be required to take in corporate papers, it is only because there are thousands of people who own the company and do have rights. Instead of having a few thousand pages indicating on whom the warrant will be served, fill in the name of the corporation. You know that whole transitive algebra thing? Yeah, it still works. Even when a corporation is owned in whole or in part by another corporation, at some point the chain of ownership ends in a real person. Who has rights.
Corporations don't pay taxes anyway, even if no corporation utilized tax havens. You do. The fact that your receipt doesn't have a line that says "Portion of price allocated for corporate tax payment" means you aren't as aware of it as you could be. Or perhaps corporate taxes get paid by offering employees less salary. Or stockholders less returns. Some combination of the three, most likely. If you hold stock directly, or through an IRA/401k/mutual fund, thats you. If you work for a corporation, thats you. If you buy products manufactured, imported, or sold by corporations.. thats you.
Whatever you gained in lower individual tax rates, you lost in purchase price. And in fact, you lose a little more than you gain (although this generally isn't going to be noticable). Why? Because corporations have to hire accountants for tax compliance. A drop in the bucket by comparison, to be sure. Not nothing, however. And you still get all the joys of calculating and filling a tax return.
In addition, corporate taxes encourage corporations to structure business in havens. Which means that there are jobs going elsewhere. I'm sure that there are far more lost to net wage cost and payroll taxes. But why would you want any jobs to go elsewhere for no reason except to avoid tax liability, which you're paying indirectly anyway?
And maybe theres an added benefit to only individuals paying taxes: they'll have more obvious incentive to give a shit about their elected representatives and their votes on expenditures.
Why would they mention corporations? If you volunteer to give your information to a corporation, no one should be stopping you.
If you volunteer to give your information to the government, no one should be stopping you.
The government is the one entity that will compel others to give up your information against your will. Your privacy cannot be violated when you volunteer. It can be violated when you do not volunteer.
Also, good luck getting legislation passed that restricts government power, while at the same time constraining corporate activity. You'd need widespread popular support. Something that, from what I can see on social networking pages, the public doesn't care about.
Well.. you're obviously thinking the cost is a lot higher than I am. And it isn't wasting their marketing budget.
Leading up to a product launch, say twitter is used to predict sales. Sales to which a company is trying to match production. Poison twitter data, and you can induce a competitor to overproduce. Which leaves the product looking like it isn't selling. So not only have they spent on marketing, but they are also spending on superfluous production capacity, tying up working capital buying back inventory out of an overstuffed distro channel, and consuming opportunities they could have had to develop and market other profitable products.
Except that if he is sensitive, the least damaging solution is highly likely to be if he insulates himself from the EM he is sensitive to. This is also highly likely to be the least expensive solution. It is also the one most likely to let him leave his home without incident.
So.. requiring he alter his behavior, rather than compel another to alter hers, is the moral solution. It may not be the prescribed legal remedy, but then.. laws and morals frequently don't mesh.
Actually.. blackmail is extortion. Not all extortion is blackmail, however. Although I must have missed where someone else called it blackmail. Unless you're trying to make that point, erroneously. Blackmail is coercion by the threat of disclosure to obtain resources. Yelp is disclosing the information and allegedly asking for 'protection' (read: extortion) money to make it go away.
Are you arguing that the United States of America hasn't, through various acts of Congress and ratified treaties, decided to trade with totalitarian states including China
Yes. The acts of Congress and the ratified treaties of which I am aware make no decision to trade with China. They do make decisions to make it easier for the companies who are engaged in trade. Related, to be sure, but separate and different than doing.
or are you arguing that the U.S.A. isn't a free nation?
The US isn't a free nation in much the same way that its economy isn't capitalist. It approximates to some degree on both spectra, but reality makes either one practically impossible to implement.
No. Just.. no. Anarcho-capitalism is, by definition, not a form of government. It is a theoretical political system that lacks government. Second, your revised question was how does a free nation decide to do business with a totalitarian government. It does not. Free nations permit by default. They do not whitelist. Or, if they do, they are not free nations.
Well.. the problem with your revised question is that.. a free nation hasn't. Companies do.
If I buy a wheel of british cheddar, a free nation didn't decide to import it nor buy it. A company decided. An individual decided. It is no different when the country is china or when the product is anything else.
The only thing a free nation does is permit the business to occur. It wouldn't be quite so free if it didn't.
Google is highly unlikely to cause all of HK's internet links to be censored anymore than they already are, however much that might be.
What may happen is that the link between HK and other parts of China may be censored. Traffic originating from HK for destinations internationally probably won't be affected.
Functional effect? China's traffic is censored much like it always has been. Responsible party? Government of China, like it always has been.
I'd hazard a guess that law enforcement wouldn't move on people like that former girlfriend of yours based on what they found on her social networking. Like any interaction with the police, anything said can be used against you. It will not be used for you. If there is evidence of criminal action on your social network's of choice page, it will be used against you. If there is only shady, but not illegal, content they will keep investigating you. But it obviously isn't going to exonerate you.
You have to be aware to get fraud fixed on your credit card too. If you blindly pay your credit card bill without ever looking at the statement then someone can make fraudulent transactions and they will never get fixed (that makes it your problem, not the credit card company's). Similarly, if you check your bank statements like you'd check your credit card statements then you can get any erroneous transactions fixed.
Maybe you missed what I said about the direct debit guarantee - the bank is legally obliged to reverse a direct debit *immediately* if you tell them to.
No, I saw the guarantee. But I have to be aware of the problem and contact the bank. If I make legit transactions before I'm aware, there are further potential issues which I may need straighten out. Overdraft and whatnot. Maybe your banks treat you well, and in addition to crediting back your money, will forego the overdraft interest and any other fees imposed. My particular bank probably would. They're pretty good in a number of other ways. But most of the commercial banks in the US, would quibble over all that crap endlessly.
Yes, I do need to be aware of the credit card transactions. But with my cards and their no fraud liability, it makes no difference to me whether or not I discover the problem during the month or upon reading the statement. There are no potential extra fees or anything. I just see the problem, call them up and inform them. At that point, they can attempt to get their money (not mine) back or they can write it off, or whatever. Besides which, my credit cards are giving me a no interest loan every month. There is no way in which immediately drafting my account, however painlessly, is currently better than my credit cards. And at least one way in which it is worse. So..
Well, yes, there is a fee for the cash advance. And usually a different rate for purchases than cash advances. But Aladrin is right. Interest for cash advance transactions starts the day the transaction posts. There is no grace period.
You have a lot more bills that regularly come due than I do, if you'd be paying something every other day. Or even remotely close to that.
The most bills I will receive in a given month is 6. Credit cards, mortgage, auto. And only 6 is I have transactions on every card, which is never. Utilities and whatnot get paid by credit card.
I wouldn't want to have anybody pulling from my deposit accounts simply because I have to be aware of the problem before I can have it corrected. As it is, if there are erroneous transactions, it is my credit card issuer's problem until it gets sorted out.
Relying on a manually operated switch to protect you from poor firearms handling is dumb. A manual safety is a part of a machine, and like any part in any machine, it can fail to function.
This is on top of the fact that Glock, Walther, Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, Sig-Sauer, Taurus and Steyr all make pistols without safety switches. And that isn't even an exhaustive list of manufacturers.
Yeah.. because the government never tries to spin, obfuscate, or omit information to serve its own purposes.
The mission statement may not say anything about punishment, but the operation of prisons isn't conducive to anything but making criminals better at being criminals. Which isn't in the mission statement either.
I think its necessary. I don't so much care if it increases the number of bills, either. Representatives don't need to decide between some ugly amendment and the sunshine and puppies of the title bill. They shouldn't have to face that decision. Or take advantage of such cover.
Of course, there are a lot of changes I think need be made in the US legislature that may not apply to EU parliament or its member nations' legislatures.
I strongly doubt any of them will come to pass, though.
Well.. that might be what Mundie is quietly thinking. But if the internet driver's license analogy offered by Mundie is played out.. then the computers running microsoft software should fail the safety standards. This is about the only good thing I can see from such a situation, and it is grossly outweighed by the bad. Still made me chuckle though.
Slashdot Mirror
It is necessarily true? Well, no. I am aware of no law, policy, or requirement that would prevent it. Not to say that there is not. So each company would be the legally registered owner of the other. But if that happened, the boards of directors would be the de facto owners. These are not the memetics you're looking for.
Did you not read? I clearly said that it probably isn't many, but why would you want to send any jobs anywhere merely because the corporation wants to avoid tax liability, which the corporation is already passing off to real people?
Except that the taxes raise all corporate prices. Which is why they can raise them. Their competitors will too, to pay their taxes.
Uh.. even if the corporation had no rights (and I don't believe they should) the individuals that make it up do have rights.
So, while a warrant should be required to take in corporate papers, it is only because there are thousands of people who own the company and do have rights. Instead of having a few thousand pages indicating on whom the warrant will be served, fill in the name of the corporation. You know that whole transitive algebra thing? Yeah, it still works. Even when a corporation is owned in whole or in part by another corporation, at some point the chain of ownership ends in a real person. Who has rights.
Corporations don't pay taxes anyway, even if no corporation utilized tax havens. You do. The fact that your receipt doesn't have a line that says "Portion of price allocated for corporate tax payment" means you aren't as aware of it as you could be. Or perhaps corporate taxes get paid by offering employees less salary. Or stockholders less returns. Some combination of the three, most likely. If you hold stock directly, or through an IRA/401k/mutual fund, thats you. If you work for a corporation, thats you. If you buy products manufactured, imported, or sold by corporations .. thats you.
Whatever you gained in lower individual tax rates, you lost in purchase price. And in fact, you lose a little more than you gain (although this generally isn't going to be noticable). Why? Because corporations have to hire accountants for tax compliance. A drop in the bucket by comparison, to be sure. Not nothing, however. And you still get all the joys of calculating and filling a tax return.
In addition, corporate taxes encourage corporations to structure business in havens. Which means that there are jobs going elsewhere. I'm sure that there are far more lost to net wage cost and payroll taxes. But why would you want any jobs to go elsewhere for no reason except to avoid tax liability, which you're paying indirectly anyway?
And maybe theres an added benefit to only individuals paying taxes: they'll have more obvious incentive to give a shit about their elected representatives and their votes on expenditures.
Why would they mention corporations? If you volunteer to give your information to a corporation, no one should be stopping you.
If you volunteer to give your information to the government, no one should be stopping you.
The government is the one entity that will compel others to give up your information against your will. Your privacy cannot be violated when you volunteer. It can be violated when you do not volunteer.
Also, good luck getting legislation passed that restricts government power, while at the same time constraining corporate activity. You'd need widespread popular support. Something that, from what I can see on social networking pages, the public doesn't care about.
Well.. you're obviously thinking the cost is a lot higher than I am. And it isn't wasting their marketing budget.
Leading up to a product launch, say twitter is used to predict sales. Sales to which a company is trying to match production. Poison twitter data, and you can induce a competitor to overproduce. Which leaves the product looking like it isn't selling. So not only have they spent on marketing, but they are also spending on superfluous production capacity, tying up working capital buying back inventory out of an overstuffed distro channel, and consuming opportunities they could have had to develop and market other profitable products.
Uh.. foiling other people's ability to gain an advantage seems like a perfectly good reason to game a system to me.
Any system can be gamed. Any system that can provide or deny an advantage will be gamed.
Except that if he is sensitive, the least damaging solution is highly likely to be if he insulates himself from the EM he is sensitive to. This is also highly likely to be the least expensive solution. It is also the one most likely to let him leave his home without incident.
So.. requiring he alter his behavior, rather than compel another to alter hers, is the moral solution. It may not be the prescribed legal remedy, but then.. laws and morals frequently don't mesh.
If it can be passed, power is already in the wrong hands.
I can not deliver anything to New York City from anywhere in the world. So who cares if Manhattan is really pricey.
Actually.. blackmail is extortion. Not all extortion is blackmail, however. Although I must have missed where someone else called it blackmail. Unless you're trying to make that point, erroneously. Blackmail is coercion by the threat of disclosure to obtain resources. Yelp is disclosing the information and allegedly asking for 'protection' (read: extortion) money to make it go away.
Yes. The acts of Congress and the ratified treaties of which I am aware make no decision to trade with China. They do make decisions to make it easier for the companies who are engaged in trade. Related, to be sure, but separate and different than doing.
The US isn't a free nation in much the same way that its economy isn't capitalist. It approximates to some degree on both spectra, but reality makes either one practically impossible to implement.
No. Just.. no. Anarcho-capitalism is, by definition, not a form of government. It is a theoretical political system that lacks government. Second, your revised question was how does a free nation decide to do business with a totalitarian government. It does not. Free nations permit by default. They do not whitelist. Or, if they do, they are not free nations.
Perhaps you define free nation differently.
Well.. the problem with your revised question is that.. a free nation hasn't. Companies do.
If I buy a wheel of british cheddar, a free nation didn't decide to import it nor buy it. A company decided. An individual decided. It is no different when the country is china or when the product is anything else.
The only thing a free nation does is permit the business to occur. It wouldn't be quite so free if it didn't.
Google is highly unlikely to cause all of HK's internet links to be censored anymore than they already are, however much that might be.
What may happen is that the link between HK and other parts of China may be censored. Traffic originating from HK for destinations internationally probably won't be affected.
Functional effect? China's traffic is censored much like it always has been. Responsible party? Government of China, like it always has been.
In other words.. same shit, different day.
I'd hazard a guess that law enforcement wouldn't move on people like that former girlfriend of yours based on what they found on her social networking. Like any interaction with the police, anything said can be used against you. It will not be used for you. If there is evidence of criminal action on your social network's of choice page, it will be used against you. If there is only shady, but not illegal, content they will keep investigating you. But it obviously isn't going to exonerate you.
No, I saw the guarantee. But I have to be aware of the problem and contact the bank. If I make legit transactions before I'm aware, there are further potential issues which I may need straighten out. Overdraft and whatnot. Maybe your banks treat you well, and in addition to crediting back your money, will forego the overdraft interest and any other fees imposed. My particular bank probably would. They're pretty good in a number of other ways. But most of the commercial banks in the US, would quibble over all that crap endlessly.
Yes, I do need to be aware of the credit card transactions. But with my cards and their no fraud liability, it makes no difference to me whether or not I discover the problem during the month or upon reading the statement. There are no potential extra fees or anything. I just see the problem, call them up and inform them. At that point, they can attempt to get their money (not mine) back or they can write it off, or whatever. Besides which, my credit cards are giving me a no interest loan every month. There is no way in which immediately drafting my account, however painlessly, is currently better than my credit cards. And at least one way in which it is worse. So..
Well, yes, there is a fee for the cash advance. And usually a different rate for purchases than cash advances. But Aladrin is right. Interest for cash advance transactions starts the day the transaction posts. There is no grace period.
You have a lot more bills that regularly come due than I do, if you'd be paying something every other day. Or even remotely close to that.
The most bills I will receive in a given month is 6. Credit cards, mortgage, auto. And only 6 is I have transactions on every card, which is never. Utilities and whatnot get paid by credit card.
I wouldn't want to have anybody pulling from my deposit accounts simply because I have to be aware of the problem before I can have it corrected. As it is, if there are erroneous transactions, it is my credit card issuer's problem until it gets sorted out.
That.. isn't even close to any of the rules.
Relying on a manually operated switch to protect you from poor firearms handling is dumb. A manual safety is a part of a machine, and like any part in any machine, it can fail to function.
This is on top of the fact that Glock, Walther, Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, Sig-Sauer, Taurus and Steyr all make pistols without safety switches. And that isn't even an exhaustive list of manufacturers.
Yeah.. because the government never tries to spin, obfuscate, or omit information to serve its own purposes.
The mission statement may not say anything about punishment, but the operation of prisons isn't conducive to anything but making criminals better at being criminals. Which isn't in the mission statement either.
I suppose you know the band, do you?
Because it could still happen with their consent. It just won't with the standard record label voluntold process.
I think its necessary. I don't so much care if it increases the number of bills, either. Representatives don't need to decide between some ugly amendment and the sunshine and puppies of the title bill. They shouldn't have to face that decision. Or take advantage of such cover.
Of course, there are a lot of changes I think need be made in the US legislature that may not apply to EU parliament or its member nations' legislatures.
I strongly doubt any of them will come to pass, though.
Well.. that might be what Mundie is quietly thinking. But if the internet driver's license analogy offered by Mundie is played out.. then the computers running microsoft software should fail the safety standards. This is about the only good thing I can see from such a situation, and it is grossly outweighed by the bad. Still made me chuckle though.