The IRS wants to know how much money credit card companies are transferring to individuals so they have a minimum lower bounds for the seller's income.
It's useful because it increases the amount of under-reporting of income that can be automatically detected. Seriously, what they'll do is run compare the income reported against the income reported by the credit card companies and anyone who's personally reported income is less than what the credit card companies said they paid them will be audited.
Whether they can or will do anything else with this is questionable.
The credit card company is supposed to report the amount of money they (supposedly) gave to the (alleged) seller.
The biggest threat appears to be identity theft for the purpose of illicit credit card transactions for the seller. For example, a v1@gr@ seller might steal someone's identity set themselves up as a seller and close the account 6 months later and disappear leaving their victim with 6 months of credit card income they know nothing about.
I'm not sure how realistic that outcome is. You're supposed to need a business bank account, and have your id verified by a bank before you can get a credit card merchant account, so if it is possible to exploit the system this way and avoid taxes, there are several other links in the chain that are already ripe for exploitation and need to be strengthened as well.
The warlocks talents seem to be a dead giveaway that those talents are fake. I don't think Blizzard would ever consider putting a "demon form" tanking talent in a magic dps class. It's just something the developers have explicitly said they will never, ever do because "that ruined Everquest".
Blizzard's developers are terribly afraid of magic classes being able to dps and tank at the same time.
Personally, I'd prefer if people chose the software that actually suits their needs. I'd prefer it if they think about it, research it, or get an actual expert opinion.
When people buy what they "feel" they need, it's almost always bad. Feeling your way through complex choices, usually means you've been tricked by a marketing pitch and have just managed to screw yourself and in the case of a company, everyone else you work with, and your investors.
... about one thing: They'd just invent a new crusade once drinking was again completely against the law. They won't go away until they stop getting funding.
This is just a photo op for them. A chance to be in the news and remind people that they exist. It's a chance to push their agenda, so it suits them to not investigate, to not be reasonable. They're deliberately and malevolently manipulating people for their own profit. Which is pretty much why the founders of MADD will no longer be associated with it.
"We have a system that automatically archives email? That could be used by Democrats against us if we do something questionable?
Let's upgrade to a system that doesn't have an automatic backup. We'll do the upgrade now and postpone the automatic backups until right before we leave office."
It's not that smart of a plan. In fact it's pretty simple minded, thinking no one would notice the fact that they did this.
I'd be surprised if the GOP has any different reaction to Clinton than any running mate that Obama could pick. It's pretty much their full time job to be outraged by the mere existence of the Democrats.
Well we should carefully consider whether it's a trap or not. I mean Microsoft isn't always wrong, but they have a strong track record of evil. It bears examining their proposal closely to see if you can spot the evil machinations.
Well, if they didn't break any laws, then there's no need to pass legislation that grants them immunity for breaking the law.
It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions.
Absolutely not, if they were coerced that needs to be shown in a court of law. I have no problem with not punishing them for breaking law in that case, but the evidence that they were coerced needs to be entered shown to the courts first.
Immunity just allows the White House to hide the evidence of what they were doing when they knowingly broke the law by asking for information they could not legally ask for.
That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun.
An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket should motivate the Democratic voters for both front runners. Additionally, as long as the coverage focuses on the race between Clinton and Obama, the less it's focusing on that other guy who happens to be running for President and that's not good for him with undecided voters.
Pretty much. Apparently, some people at the NY Times have suspected as much since 2003, but their long legal battle to get the documents to prove it is over as of last week.
1) People like to be told what they already believe. 2) American media is almost entirely corporate owned (90% owned by 5 owners) 3) The media exists to make money for their owners. 4) The media will therefore prioritize stories based on what the majority of the audience wish to hear. 5) The media all competing to tell people what they already believe creates an echo chamber which hides any truth inconsistent with what people already believe.
You have merely transferred the duty to be flawless from the media to the audience. This does not seem to be a decidely better model for the media than the one you are arguing against.
You don't seem to grasp the essence of the controversy. It's not that the military is making a case for the war (even though it should n0t be doing that, it should be concentrating on fighting the war). It's that the military has been deliberately using supposedly independent experts as propaganda distributors. If the military had hired them outright to spread their message of guns and bombs, it'd be a different controversy (over whether or not that's a justified use of tax payer money). It's the fact that they were being deliberately sneaky about how they were getting their message out.
Of course, that's less than half the story, the story's also about how these media outlets should have known that their supposedly independent experts had been compromised by conflict of interest with the military. In particular CNN even boasted about how it made sure to only air experts pre-approved by the military. The major news media, and the television news media in particular, has been deliberately derelict in it's duty to inform the people.
It is supposed to be the duty of the politicians to argue for a cause, not for the military to organize a campaign of lies to make the government look less incompetent.
Right now in Iraq, the bad guys can turn on CNN and see that America is teetering on the decision to give up and leave. That fact alone keeps them going -- they know that they just have to hold on a little bit longer and then they'll have it. REALLY? And here I thought they were still going on because they live there and they have no where else to go.
There are many, many objections to be made against our decision to start the war, against our continued involvement in the war, and against our tactics and strategy within the war. But here in the middle of the war is not the time to voice these objections. The U.S. isn't involved in any war. The U.S. is involved in a training and peacekeeping mission in Iraq to help the Iraqi Government gain control over their own country. Of course, the reason the U.S. is obligated to help do this is because the lawlessness is directly the result of actions taken by the U.S. military. Not just invading the country, but disbanding it's army and police and leaving the government powerless to manage it's own people.
Even then, war can't be a cart-blanche excuse for the government to run rampant because if it is allowed to do so, it will do so. Furthermore, if your sentiments that no criticism could be tolerated in times of war were popular, you'd quickly find that war would never end. No government could resist the temptation of permanent immunity to criticism. We would in deed be at war with Eurasia and we would always have been at war with Eurasia. Anyone who disagreed would be a traitor and deserve execution.
Allegedly popularly elected. With wide spread attempts to prevent or disrupt democratic voting and a large minority of the vote counted by unauditable machines produced by partisan supporters of the Republican Party, nobody will ever know what the real result might have been.
Not really. What I read indicated the authors of those comments are two idiots who don't understand the meaning of "intentional deception" and "conflict of interest" or are so partisanly blinded that they can't even conceive of wrong doing by their favorite political party.
It's quite obvious they first considered who was being criticized then determined to make up a reason why it can't possibly be true. Bribing, deceiving, and extorting favorable dis-information out of "independent" military analysts is a new low for this government.
I'm not sure Microsoft is going to look at it that way. I think they going to look at it more in terms of these numbers: They can risk 1 million dollars a day in fines from the EU or they can risk 27 million dollars a day by eroding their proprietary lock-in on MS Office. What do you think they'll do?
As far as been banned from Government sales, they're probably pretty sure they can bribe their way out of that for less than $365 million.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's put this rather simply:
The IRS wants to know how much money credit card companies are transferring to individuals so they have a minimum lower bounds for the seller's income.
It's useful because it increases the amount of under-reporting of income that can be automatically detected. Seriously, what they'll do is run compare the income reported against the income reported by the credit card companies and anyone who's personally reported income is less than what the credit card companies said they paid them will be audited.
Whether they can or will do anything else with this is questionable.
The credit card company is supposed to report the amount of money they (supposedly) gave to the (alleged) seller.
The biggest threat appears to be identity theft for the purpose of illicit credit card transactions for the seller. For example, a v1@gr@ seller might steal someone's identity set themselves up as a seller and close the account 6 months later and disappear leaving their victim with 6 months of credit card income they know nothing about.
I'm not sure how realistic that outcome is. You're supposed to need a business bank account, and have your id verified by a bank before you can get a credit card merchant account, so if it is possible to exploit the system this way and avoid taxes, there are several other links in the chain that are already ripe for exploitation and need to be strengthened as well.
I'm sure if you can find one that they can't read properly and save changes to, they'd welcome the feedback.
The warlocks talents seem to be a dead giveaway that those talents are fake. I don't think Blizzard would ever consider putting a "demon form" tanking talent in a magic dps class. It's just something the developers have explicitly said they will never, ever do because "that ruined Everquest".
Blizzard's developers are terribly afraid of magic classes being able to dps and tank at the same time.
Personally, I thought he was just running with the idea "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Let's not forget David Brin and Orson Scott Card.
Personally, I'd prefer if people chose the software that actually suits their needs. I'd prefer it if they think about it, research it, or get an actual expert opinion.
When people buy what they "feel" they need, it's almost always bad. Feeling your way through complex choices, usually means you've been tricked by a marketing pitch and have just managed to screw yourself and in the case of a company, everyone else you work with, and your investors.
Two words: Free Publicity
It's the only reason they released that press release.
I think you're wrong...
... about one thing: They'd just invent a new crusade once drinking was again completely against the law. They won't go away until they stop getting funding.
They don't care. Seriously.
This is just a photo op for them. A chance to be in the news and remind people that they exist. It's a chance to push their agenda, so it suits them to not investigate, to not be reasonable. They're deliberately and malevolently manipulating people for their own profit. Which is pretty much why the founders of MADD will no longer be associated with it.
Yes and no. It's not exactly brilliant.
"We have a system that automatically archives email? That could be used by Democrats against us if we do something questionable?
Let's upgrade to a system that doesn't have an automatic backup. We'll do the upgrade now and postpone the automatic backups until right before we leave office."
It's not that smart of a plan. In fact it's pretty simple minded, thinking no one would notice the fact that they did this.
Microsoft astroturfers began spreading the Microsoft version in the 90s, because "IBM is dying".
Vote early and vote often?
I'd be surprised if the GOP has any different reaction to Clinton than any running mate that Obama could pick. It's pretty much their full time job to be outraged by the mere existence of the Democrats.
Well we should carefully consider whether it's a trap or not. I mean Microsoft isn't always wrong, but they have a strong track record of evil. It bears examining their proposal closely to see if you can spot the evil machinations.
Well, if they didn't break any laws, then there's no need to pass legislation that grants them immunity for breaking the law.
It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions.
Absolutely not, if they were coerced that needs to be shown in a court of law. I have no problem with not punishing them for breaking law in that case, but the evidence that they were coerced needs to be entered shown to the courts first.
Immunity just allows the White House to hide the evidence of what they were doing when they knowingly broke the law by asking for information they could not legally ask for.
That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun.
An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket should motivate the Democratic voters for both front runners. Additionally, as long as the coverage focuses on the race between Clinton and Obama, the less it's focusing on that other guy who happens to be running for President and that's not good for him with undecided voters.
Pretty much. Apparently, some people at the NY Times have suspected as much since 2003, but their long legal battle to get the documents to prove it is over as of last week.
There are problems with your ideal:
1) People like to be told what they already believe.
2) American media is almost entirely corporate owned (90% owned by 5 owners)
3) The media exists to make money for their owners.
4) The media will therefore prioritize stories based on what the majority of the audience wish to hear.
5) The media all competing to tell people what they already believe creates an echo chamber which hides any truth inconsistent with what people already believe.
You have merely transferred the duty to be flawless from the media to the audience. This does not seem to be a decidely better model for the media than the one you are arguing against.
You don't seem to grasp the essence of the controversy. It's not that the military is making a case for the war (even though it should n0t be doing that, it should be concentrating on fighting the war). It's that the military has been deliberately using supposedly independent experts as propaganda distributors. If the military had hired them outright to spread their message of guns and bombs, it'd be a different controversy (over whether or not that's a justified use of tax payer money). It's the fact that they were being deliberately sneaky about how they were getting their message out.
Of course, that's less than half the story, the story's also about how these media outlets should have known that their supposedly independent experts had been compromised by conflict of interest with the military. In particular CNN even boasted about how it made sure to only air experts pre-approved by the military. The major news media, and the television news media in particular, has been deliberately derelict in it's duty to inform the people.
It is supposed to be the duty of the politicians to argue for a cause, not for the military to organize a campaign of lies to make the government look less incompetent.
Even then, war can't be a cart-blanche excuse for the government to run rampant because if it is allowed to do so, it will do so. Furthermore, if your sentiments that no criticism could be tolerated in times of war were popular, you'd quickly find that war would never end. No government could resist the temptation of permanent immunity to criticism. We would in deed be at war with Eurasia and we would always have been at war with Eurasia. Anyone who disagreed would be a traitor and deserve execution.
Allegedly popularly elected. With wide spread attempts to prevent or disrupt democratic voting and a large minority of the vote counted by unauditable machines produced by partisan supporters of the Republican Party, nobody will ever know what the real result might have been.
Not really. What I read indicated the authors of those comments are two idiots who don't understand the meaning of "intentional deception" and "conflict of interest" or are so partisanly blinded that they can't even conceive of wrong doing by their favorite political party.
It's quite obvious they first considered who was being criticized then determined to make up a reason why it can't possibly be true. Bribing, deceiving, and extorting favorable dis-information out of "independent" military analysts is a new low for this government.
I'm not sure Microsoft is going to look at it that way. I think they going to look at it more in terms of these numbers: They can risk 1 million dollars a day in fines from the EU or they can risk 27 million dollars a day by eroding their proprietary lock-in on MS Office. What do you think they'll do?
As far as been banned from Government sales, they're probably pretty sure they can bribe their way out of that for less than $365 million.