A use tax isn't a tax for using a public service, it's a consumption tax for goods that are bought out of state. You may not like it but when you buy goods off the internet, you are required to pay the in-state sales tax for those purchases to the state. You aren't paying it though. This is tax evasion. By requiring the seller to collect it, you can close that loophole. Last I heard, the majority of people were in favor of closing tax loopholes.
I would wager the octave question was false because of flat/sharp keys. I would also wager that the notes would be notes on a piano keyboard, which can be counted. The question does not ask for how many frequencies are between a range of frequencies.
XP didn't cannibalize Vista sales. Vista didn't sell because it was crap at release. If people were forced to choose between going from XP to Vista, or going from XP to OSX or Linux, Microsoft would have been even worse off. That's why Microsoft kept extending support.
Amazon's primary driver to their market is a free app a day. The catch is that you cannot use these apps (at least none of the 30 differnet ones I tested) unless (a)you're online and logged into the amazon app store.
That's interesting to hear. Perhaps it's not as widespread as it used to be, because I've claimed several of those free apps and have no problem running them while in airplane mode. The apps I've tried are Gem Spinner, infeCCt, Seven Stars, Pig Blaster, and Candy Swipe. Gem Spinner did have a point where I had to reconnect to the network to download additional levels, but that's the only issue I've run in to so far.
Amazon App Store is terrible, both for consumers (try using apps offline), and developers (too much to even start mentioning.)
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this. I'll admit that I'm no developer and have no idea how developers are treated, but I have the Amazon App Store on my Galaxy Tab and have had zero problems with any of the apps running when offline. I'll admit that I only have a little over a dozen apps from them so far but with how widespread you make the problems sound, I would expect that would be enough to encounter the problem.
A sales tax is a tax that is imposed on goods that are sold and consumed in that state. That is why you do not charge a sales tax for out-of-state purchases. A use tax is a tax that is imposed on goods that are sold in one state and consumed in the other. It is charged in the state where the goods are consumed. You are never legally obligated to pay both. You are also able to file a claim to have the sales tax paid for an out-of-state purchase refunded do you, though very few people actually do this. (it's rarely a good return on your time investment.)
But with simple math, they can't ALL be correct. If it was correct that "we have 10 years to fix the problem" in 1989, then it's mathematically impossible for 2009 to have "4 years to solve the problem." After all, we all know nothing was done to truly address this in the 90's or aughts. If 1989 was true, there is no longer a chance to solve the problem, so 2009 would be wrong.
The stations would have to run a major markup, due to the time it takes to charge a car compared to the time it takes to fill a gas tank. Even if they get the charge time down to just an hour, you're looking at an absolute maximum of 24 car charges per day per plugin spot. A gas pump could go through that in a couple hours. Why does this matter? Because of the overhead of having the station: building, staff, land, etc.
The DOE has a report showing that 77% of the light vehicle fleet in the US could switch over to electric and could be charged at night without any additional base load generation facilities. So, nobody is going to need to build additional coal fired power plants.
Yeah, so you just need to stop at the charging station overnight in order to be able to drive from LA to SF.
"The top apps at Chomp for the search terms 'restaurant guide': Yelp, Urbanspoon, and Zagat, just as you'd expect."
I think you're confusing what we hope for with what we expect. Those are what we hope for, but the army survival guide really is what we expect from a search.
It was only fairly recently that it became impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy, yet up to that point somehow the situation you described never came to pass.
It was also only fairly recently that the prospect of being able to earn enough money through work in order to pay for college became impossible. The cost of education ballooning so high has caused the amount of debt to become unreasonable, which is why the banks had to force the loans to be lifelong.
Allow discharge in bankruptcy (which is Constitutional, by the way; the current state is not). Suddenly two things happen:
Actually only one thing will happen. Students who graduate, who typically have little to no assets, and tens (to hundreds) of thousands of dollars in debt will all declare bankruptcy immediately upon graduation to discharge that debt. Sure, they'll have credit problems for a while, but the benefits from discharging that debt will far outweigh the costs. Yeah, great plan, until all lending institutions completely stop all student lending.
But still, at least it was complex enough that the housekeeping staff wouldn't ordinarily be able to do it.
Depends on where you go and what you're doing. My brother was at a wedding in Mexico at a resort, and during the wedding, everyone who was registered as a guest for the wedding had their rooms and safes cleaned out. It was mainly laptops that were taken, as cameras were at the wedding and people were wearing their jewelry. Sure they all filed a report with the hotel, but it didn't matter.
But put yourself in this situation. Widget costs the same in physical store as it costs on Amazon. Sales tax is running 10%. Do you buy it in the store, paying an extra 10% in tax, or do you buy online, use the free super saver shipping, and effectively get the item for 10% off? That's how it is in California, and that's why the physical stores are lobbying for Amazon to have to do the same tax collecting that they have to do.
There is no such thing as truly free speech, due to the existence of slander lawsuits. You can also experience the lack of truly free speech by talking with a friend about what all is required in weaponizing a plane while you're going through the security checkpoints at an airplane. If you prefer a more old fashioned example, start screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
While we say we have free speech, we also have laws to enforce consequences based on the reactions to that speech. Incite a panic? There's consequences. Make threats? There's consequences. Yeah it's a delicate balance, which is why discussion is good, but it's hard to advocate that people have a right to verbally and emotionally abuse others.
Depends on how you define regular people. If you define regular people as people who work in the retail stores, who are experiencing declining sales and closing locations and losing jobs, then it isn't really a tax holiday that benefits regular people. If you define regular people as people who "cheat" the tax code by not paying the use tax on items purchased online, though, then sure it benefits them. Of course, that's the whole reason the government started forcing business into the role of tax collectors, because you can't trust the average person to pay what they actually owe.:)
If a corporation hiring people is allowed to have accent neutralization requirements, then the government hiring people should be able to have the same requirements. A teacher who can't be understood can't teach anything. What some people call racism and profiling, others will call enabling success in education. There was nothing about forcing non-employees to speak without an accent.
Anyone who is truly that thorough in picking where they buy a house probably would have been turned away by the frequent smaller quakes, and would have been clear of the area anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
A use tax isn't a tax for using a public service, it's a consumption tax for goods that are bought out of state. You may not like it but when you buy goods off the internet, you are required to pay the in-state sales tax for those purchases to the state. You aren't paying it though. This is tax evasion. By requiring the seller to collect it, you can close that loophole. Last I heard, the majority of people were in favor of closing tax loopholes.
And thanks to Visa for getting that law passed! Now they just raise everyone's prices!
I would wager the octave question was false because of flat/sharp keys. I would also wager that the notes would be notes on a piano keyboard, which can be counted. The question does not ask for how many frequencies are between a range of frequencies.
XP didn't cannibalize Vista sales. Vista didn't sell because it was crap at release. If people were forced to choose between going from XP to Vista, or going from XP to OSX or Linux, Microsoft would have been even worse off. That's why Microsoft kept extending support.
Amazon's primary driver to their market is a free app a day. The catch is that you cannot use these apps (at least none of the 30 differnet ones I tested) unless (a)you're online and logged into the amazon app store.
That's interesting to hear. Perhaps it's not as widespread as it used to be, because I've claimed several of those free apps and have no problem running them while in airplane mode. The apps I've tried are Gem Spinner, infeCCt, Seven Stars, Pig Blaster, and Candy Swipe. Gem Spinner did have a point where I had to reconnect to the network to download additional levels, but that's the only issue I've run in to so far.
Amazon App Store is terrible, both for consumers (try using apps offline), and developers (too much to even start mentioning.)
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this. I'll admit that I'm no developer and have no idea how developers are treated, but I have the Amazon App Store on my Galaxy Tab and have had zero problems with any of the apps running when offline. I'll admit that I only have a little over a dozen apps from them so far but with how widespread you make the problems sound, I would expect that would be enough to encounter the problem.
A sales tax is a tax that is imposed on goods that are sold and consumed in that state. That is why you do not charge a sales tax for out-of-state purchases. A use tax is a tax that is imposed on goods that are sold in one state and consumed in the other. It is charged in the state where the goods are consumed. You are never legally obligated to pay both. You are also able to file a claim to have the sales tax paid for an out-of-state purchase refunded do you, though very few people actually do this. (it's rarely a good return on your time investment.)
But with simple math, they can't ALL be correct. If it was correct that "we have 10 years to fix the problem" in 1989, then it's mathematically impossible for 2009 to have "4 years to solve the problem." After all, we all know nothing was done to truly address this in the 90's or aughts. If 1989 was true, there is no longer a chance to solve the problem, so 2009 would be wrong.
The stations would have to run a major markup, due to the time it takes to charge a car compared to the time it takes to fill a gas tank. Even if they get the charge time down to just an hour, you're looking at an absolute maximum of 24 car charges per day per plugin spot. A gas pump could go through that in a couple hours. Why does this matter? Because of the overhead of having the station: building, staff, land, etc.
The DOE has a report showing that 77% of the light vehicle fleet in the US could switch over to electric and could be charged at night without any additional base load generation facilities. So, nobody is going to need to build additional coal fired power plants.
Yeah, so you just need to stop at the charging station overnight in order to be able to drive from LA to SF.
"The top apps at Chomp for the search terms 'restaurant guide': Yelp, Urbanspoon, and Zagat, just as you'd expect."
I think you're confusing what we hope for with what we expect. Those are what we hope for, but the army survival guide really is what we expect from a search.
It was only fairly recently that it became impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy, yet up to that point somehow the situation you described never came to pass.
It was also only fairly recently that the prospect of being able to earn enough money through work in order to pay for college became impossible. The cost of education ballooning so high has caused the amount of debt to become unreasonable, which is why the banks had to force the loans to be lifelong.
Allow discharge in bankruptcy (which is Constitutional, by the way; the current state is not). Suddenly two things happen:
Actually only one thing will happen. Students who graduate, who typically have little to no assets, and tens (to hundreds) of thousands of dollars in debt will all declare bankruptcy immediately upon graduation to discharge that debt. Sure, they'll have credit problems for a while, but the benefits from discharging that debt will far outweigh the costs. Yeah, great plan, until all lending institutions completely stop all student lending.
Frankly we need to raise the retirement age to 80 NOW. Make the boomers work for another 25 years or retire on their own money.
What do you suppose the younger people who would have taken those jobs will do?
Maybe they'll go back for some arithmatic lessons.
But still, at least it was complex enough that the housekeeping staff wouldn't ordinarily be able to do it.
Depends on where you go and what you're doing. My brother was at a wedding in Mexico at a resort, and during the wedding, everyone who was registered as a guest for the wedding had their rooms and safes cleaned out. It was mainly laptops that were taken, as cameras were at the wedding and people were wearing their jewelry. Sure they all filed a report with the hotel, but it didn't matter.
The law there says that unclaimed money gets kept by the city. There's no grounds for a suit. Then again, that hasn't stopped lawyers in the past...
You know, that whole Pledge of Allegiance thing? Back before they banned it from schools of course.
It generally has to do with population density. This is northern Canada.
But put yourself in this situation. Widget costs the same in physical store as it costs on Amazon. Sales tax is running 10%. Do you buy it in the store, paying an extra 10% in tax, or do you buy online, use the free super saver shipping, and effectively get the item for 10% off? That's how it is in California, and that's why the physical stores are lobbying for Amazon to have to do the same tax collecting that they have to do.
There is no such thing as truly free speech, due to the existence of slander lawsuits. You can also experience the lack of truly free speech by talking with a friend about what all is required in weaponizing a plane while you're going through the security checkpoints at an airplane. If you prefer a more old fashioned example, start screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
While we say we have free speech, we also have laws to enforce consequences based on the reactions to that speech. Incite a panic? There's consequences. Make threats? There's consequences. Yeah it's a delicate balance, which is why discussion is good, but it's hard to advocate that people have a right to verbally and emotionally abuse others.
Depends on how you define regular people. If you define regular people as people who work in the retail stores, who are experiencing declining sales and closing locations and losing jobs, then it isn't really a tax holiday that benefits regular people. If you define regular people as people who "cheat" the tax code by not paying the use tax on items purchased online, though, then sure it benefits them. Of course, that's the whole reason the government started forcing business into the role of tax collectors, because you can't trust the average person to pay what they actually owe. :)
It's not like you can train shooting at people (you can train with other targets, but that doesn't carry the emotional response).
Sure you can, you just need to be a wealthy russian. Ref: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110478/
They never delete their data on you.
If a corporation hiring people is allowed to have accent neutralization requirements, then the government hiring people should be able to have the same requirements. A teacher who can't be understood can't teach anything. What some people call racism and profiling, others will call enabling success in education. There was nothing about forcing non-employees to speak without an accent.
Anyone who is truly that thorough in picking where they buy a house probably would have been turned away by the frequent smaller quakes, and would have been clear of the area anyways.