No, definately not. The whole point is that the products of a non-kosher animal must not enter your body. This obviously includes eating, but also applies to transplants.
Does this means that a devout Jew can only accept organ, tissue and blood donations from people of the same faith? Where does this leave people who are involved in accidents that require immediate surgery? Or haemophiliacs?
Heh. I know he's only looking for his dreams but, speaking from experience, I think it's safe to say that that requires more than zero insertion force...
Having said that, heat dissipation can sometimes be a problem and there have been times when overclocking has been desirable.
Unfortunately, finding a suitable heat sink that doesn't interfere with operations can be problematic, although water cooling/immersion can be a more than pleasant solution - with the right component(s).
HMV the retailer is a seperate entity from HMV the record label, and each has its own priorities. So, to use a similar analogy, while HMV the record label would be concerned about Joe Average burning his own CDs at home, HMV the retailer will quite happily sell him a CD-R drive, media and a copy of Roxio Easy CD Creator to boot.
This is hardly a change of policy - record stores, including the likes of HMV and Virgin that have close ties with record labels themselves, have been selling blank media for years. Blank audio cassettes, video and DAT tapes, Mini Discs, floppy discs, etc all fall into this category.
Potentially, selling such media damages the record stores sales of pre-recorded material. However I've yet to see a record store that won't sell you a blank because it's scared of hurting its sales of more profitable items.
Another example is Sony. Sony the record label won't sell you a copy of either Attack Of The Clones or Spiderman soundtracks on CD without using a form of copy prevention that stops you from playing the CD in a PC. * However, Sony the hardware manufacturer will sell you a PC or games console that it says you can play your music CDs on but not one that will play these pups.
Furthermore, Sony will sell you a Mini Disc, MP3 or other digital recording device that is specifically designed to facilitate the digital reproduction of CDs without batting an eyelid that you could use the technology to make illegal copies of the music published by its own record labels.
(* In the UK at least. And, yes, I know that these technically aren't CDs as by definition they don't adhere to the relevant standards that would allow them to be described as such, but I've yet to see a popular description for these discs that is immediately understood by the music buying public. Anyhow, if you're on/. and you're reading this discussion then you either know what I'm talking about already or are intelligent enough to find it out for yourself.)
The New York Times has an article about the web's one true growth industry: spam, fraud and porn. Societal meltdown or flourishing ecosystem? The talking heads debate.
Spam, fraud and porn. One true growth industry.
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
And there was me thinking that should be three.
It looks as if the old/. karma system ("50 + 1 - 1 = 49", etc) has a worthy sucessor...
Err, just about everyone and his brother sells region-free DVD players outside the US. In fact, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a major European retailer that won't sell you a region-free player if that's what you want.
This is especially true in Britain where buying US-imported Region 1 encoded discs doesn't present a language barrier and, amongst DVD afficionados, is often the preferred option.
OK, I realise the reason why avid gamers who get immersed in EverQuest refer to the game as EverCrack in a light-hearted jab at themselves because the game is so addictive but doesn't using the Crack suffix just further damage the public's perception of the Internet, PC and console gaming and gamers in general?
Isn't it enough that TV and print media already make the best of every opportunity that they get to bash any of these three things?
If you believe the hype and hysteria then the Internet's full of paedophiles swapping pictures and preying on young children in chat rooms, games like GTA3, Gangsters, Tekken and Doom just glamorise and glorify violent behaviour and gamers are mal-adjusted, sedentary, social misfits with poor social skills that would rather sit on their fat asses all day than get a job, a friend or any kind of life.
(Don't even get me started on how the media regards RPGs - anyone old enough to remember the golden age of table-top games will remember how insane the media were about that "corrupting influence".)
EverQuest, like life itself, attracts many kinds of players. Some hardcore but most are casual. Some are openly aggressive but most are openly approachable. Some are complete jerks but most are just well-rounded human beings.
Bottom line is this: playing EverQuest is no big deal. Sure, if you're devoting every waking hour to it then you have a problem (or, given the way the EverQuest community works, a viable business venture) but then that's true of just about anything.
No, I don't think that all Americans share the same views on the French (or any other topic) but I do find it annoying that none of the people who find the time to post this kind of crap on/. have the balls to post under their own accounts.
If they enjoy practising their right of free speech so much shouldn't they at least have the guts to say "these are my views, this is who I am and I make no apologies for it"?
And, for the record, I am not French. What I am is bored of (and pissed off at) having to read this kind of junk on every discussion that has any kind of non-American interests mentioned.
Actually for some silly unknown reason Amercan and British boys were spilling their blood to save your country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys while your Grandmother was sucking off Gestapo officers for cigarettes and cheap wine.
Why do all xemophobic, racist idiots insist on posting as Anonymous Cowards? If you're so proud of your views that you feel the need to share them then why not let us know who you are?
You're just like the KKK - they hid behind their hoods and you hide behind the "Post Anonymously" option.
(Oh, and I find it funny that Americans endulge in France-bashing. If it wasn't for their help during the American War of Independence then it's highly unlikely that there would even be a USA as we know it. And who do you think gave the Statue of Liberty to the US as well?)
Odd, the title says 2.2 Trillion, the body says 2.2 Billion. Pick a number.
OK, I've done that. Can you guess what it is yet?
Stop nit-picking and just enjoy the damn film
on
Sen To, X-Men 2
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't know about the rest of the/. crowd but I extremely surprised by how much I enjoyed the first X-Men movie.
As an avid comic book reader (and a one-time X-Men fanatic) I was apprehensive about the film adaptation of my favourite band of super heroes.
After all, the track record of comic book characters on the silver screen wasn't exactly filled with success - Superman, Batman were both good movies but their follow-ups got progressively worse, Judge Dredd had so much potential (see Robocop, which even includes some classic Dredd on-liners) but was such a disappointment, The Punisher, etc. (The less said about Supergirl the better.)
Compared to all of these, X-Men rocked.
Not only was it true to the comic book in most regards but it got across the underlying moral message of the comic book title - that no matter what we look like on the outside or what we can do, we are all equal - without having to excessively spoonfeed the audience or dragging its feet.
OK, if we're nitpicking then Rogue shouldn't be a teenager and neither should Bobby (Iceman). Jean Grey should be called Marvel Girl - or Pheonix at a pinch - when in costume not Jean (did anyone else find it silly that her's was the only alter ego that didn't have a proper name?). Ororo should have either had a headpiece or a mohican hair cut. Toad should have been fatter and stupider. Mystique should have had a costume. It should have been the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
But, there are things that will work in comic books that won't work on screen. The writers allude to this when they have Wolverine question the fashion sense of the team's costumes, to which Cyclops replies "What would you prefer, gold spandex?" - any X-Men fan will recognise this immediately as a reference to Wolverine's own comic book costume, which was originally blue and gold and later orange and brown.
In fact, this was one of my favourite scenes in the movie, and even my girlfriend who wouldn't read a comic book if you paid her laughed along with the joke.
Bottom line is this: rather than nit-pick over minor details why don't you just enjoy the film?
Brian Singer, the cast and the crew did a great job. Would it kill you to acknowledge it?
Let's assume what you said holds true. If my company sends me to another state for 2 weeks to do a server installation or LAN setup or whatever in another office of the same company, then I would have to pay the taxes for the 2 weeks worked in that other state. Fill out the proper tax forms for each state to start working there, etc.
But I don't think that happens. When I go out of state for my job, I'm still "on the clock" (I'm not a contractor, I'm employed by and do work for the company that pays me directly) as far as the company's concerned, but I don't pay that state's taxes on wages.
Re-read my original post. I made it clear that I wsa making an assumption, based on what I knew to be true of pro sports athletes. I even said it was likely that, if the proportion of your work that takes place out of state is not significant, then it might well be unimportant to the states' bean counters.
Two week's out of state isn't significant (when you're employed for 52 weeks), especially if you're not a large earner. But MLB players spend half theit playing time on the road (81 of 162 games) and earn an average of $2.35 million (give or take a couple of thou).
No offense intended, but I think it's fair to say that someone like Alex Rodriguez earns more for one game (over $150,000 in salaries alone) than you or I make in a year. So, while chasing the tax he should be paying for a three game series is a profitable use of a state employee's time, chasing you for a couple of hundred dollars (if that) isn't quite the same deal.
And, who knows, technically you might be liable for out of state taxes when you're on the road for your company. Have you actually checked the issue with your accountant or are you just guessing?
IANAA (I am not an American) but I am a big NFL and MLB watcher. And I think that, along the way, I've spotted a potential answer to your question.
Obviously, MLB and NFL players are on the road a lot - one moment they'll be playing in California, the next they'll be in New York, then Texas and so on.
Now I'm not sure it's the case for NFL players (who will only spend eight or so days actively participating in their profession* outside their home state, where they'll play the rest of their games, train, etc) but it's true that MLB players (who will spend as much time on the road as they do at home) have to play state taxes where they are actually playing.
So, when Alex Rodriguez of the Texas Rangers plays a series in Oakland or Anaheim, then he has to pay Californian taxes on the relevant portion of his $25 million salary. When he plays a series against New York, then it's New York taxes he has to pay. And when he's playing at home, or at Houston, it's Texan taxes he's liable for.
The fact that he works for a Texas based organisation is irrelevant - the fact that he's physically doing his job in California, New York, etc is what's relevant.
In your case, I would assume that you would pay Ohio taxes for the time that you work from home and Indiana taxes for the time that you are in your parent office.
But, to quote Silence Of The Lambs, "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." It may be that, if you don't spend a significant portion of your time in Indiana, you don't have to worry about your occasional trips to the office.
Personally, I think you should clarify the issue with an accountant (doesn't the company have one that you can consult?) and even the relevant state authorities.
Good luck with your telecommuting. Hope it goes well. Don't forget to tell your friends that someone compared you to A-Rod...
(* I refuse to call it work.)
(** OK, so I lied. Work is a nice short word to use in this situation.)
Driving too fast is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.
Similarly, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.
It doesn't matter that some people can drive fast or drive and talk on a mobile phone without detriment to their driving skills, it matters that not all people can do it.
In your exact words, "setting arbritray non-scientific standards is a mal-application of justice". Is it? Or is it just what's practical and sensible?
Same with the cell-phone thing. I've been the in car with someone holding a meeting via cellphone, while the driver who was speaking and concentrating on the meeting performed some of the most skilled driving I've ever seen. Its completely dependent on the skill of the invovled person.
I really think what need is to get rid of most of the laws regarding that stuff - DWI, Cellhpone bans, all that junk.
Instead punish outcomes. If you are driving down the road and swerving in and out of lane, thats reckless endangerment and reckless driving. It doesnt matter if you were reaching for the radio, reaching for the phone, dropped a cigarette in your lap, or are drunk (if you are drunk when pulled over, you'd of course get arrested on the spot still - I am not suggesting we just write a summons and send them on the way).
And some people, such as race car drivers, can drive at speeds in excess of 150 mph with near complete control of their vehicles. The rational extension of your argument is that speed limits shouldn't exist either because there are people out there who could get to their destinations faster and just as safely without them.
You seem to forget that laws are in place to prevent unfavorable outcomes and tragedies just as much as they are there to punish transgressors.
The phrase "warchalking" is derived from the the hacking term "wardialling".
Hackers would programme their computers to search for all phone lines that returned data tones - ie, networks that they could hack into. This exhaustive searching was known as "wardialling".
Hence "warchalking", a similar process that uses chalk markings.
Also, driving around looking for unsecure wireless networks to tap into and possibly exploit is called "wardriving".
I don't want to get into a discussion on how to use Google (because that would be even further off-topic) but what I was trying to illustrate is that "TWOK" isn't a commonly used acronym.
Using the abbreviation "/." on a site called "Slashdot" isn't exactly a leap of logic.
If you click on the YRO link on the left hand side of this page then you'll get taken to a page titled "Your Rights Online" - another no-brainer.
On a site that advocates the use of open source software, if you don't know that "GPL" stands for "General Public License" then you're in the wrong place. Similarly, anyone who's used a PC for more than five minutes will recognise "MS" as being "Microsoft" - hell, some of us out there still have a PC or two running MS-DOS.
"IANAL" is a commonly used Usenet abbreviation. If you've ever used the Internet for anything more than the WWW and FTP - the worldwide web and file transfer protocol for the benefit of the one person who will otherwise in delight in pointing out my own use of acronyms - then it's pretty damn hard to have missed that phrase, which of course stands for "I am not a lawyer".
But "TWOK"? Who uses "TWOK"? Not many people it would seem, if Google is correct - the ten most popular uses of "TWOK" include only two Star Trek related references, ranked seventh and tenth.
Before that seventh reference there are references to an Inupiat Eskimo Artist from Shishmaref, Alaska, a German maker of street lighting, a two kilometer road race and the stock symbol of a Californian company that locates and promotes new musical talent.
Now, if Trekers had latched on to "TWOK" in a big way don't you think it would be listed above any of those? (Remember, Google ranks pages by how popular they are, not by any other nefarious method.) And if hardcore Trekers who put up web pages and write (we)blogs haven't latched onto "TWOK" then what chance is there that casual Star Trek fans have?
Using acronyms where they will be recognised and understood is fine. But using them where they might be at all ambiguous without providing an explanation? Well that's just plain lazy or plain stupid or both.
And anyway, shouldn't the correct abbreviation of the second Star Trek motion picture be "STII:TWOK"? Isn't it called "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan"? And don't you think that that extra "STII:" makes all the difference between (in this story at least) instant recognition and bemusement for many people?
This isn't a rant about being "in on it". It's a simple request* for plain, understandable, conversation that the majority of people can follow without having to reference other resources.
(* OK, it's a rant. But it's a damn relevant one. IMHO.**)
(** This is a joke. Please don't try and come up with a witty retort. You'll just look as anal as I do right now.)
The director's cut of TWOK kicks ass, but I'm guessing that the people who forked over $$$ for the DVD set are a bit miffed that they're not getting the extra goodies. The added scenes improve the movie more than you'd guess.
Sorry to single you out but it's sad how many posters on/. feel the need to insert an acronym or two just for the hell of it when, more often than not, the unabbreviated text would convey their message just as well.
TWOK? Would it have killed you to write The Wrath Of Khan? I'm sure that a lot of people knew what you meant but what about the rest of us? Should we really need to rely on a Google search to work out what you're trying to say?
If I, a Star Trek fan who's seen all the shows and all the movies, have to scratch my head wondering what the hell you're talking about what do you think it's like for people who aren't Trek-obsessed?
Would the fifteen seconds that it would have cost you to provide a little clarity kill you?
I think you missed my point. I didn't say that it's right for India (or any nation) to use force, or the threat of force to achieve its agenda.
I didn't say that promoting their "military might", especially in the current political climate is to be applauded.
I'm not suggesting that stirring up nationalist sentiments and whipping the general population into a feeding frenzy is a particularly good thing.
What I said was, in response to the original poster's comments that this was true "especially [of] India" is that is true of all nations.
In my response I used the example of the Cold War but all of the above - the use of force, the projection of military might, the rampant nationalism - is just as true of the US today as it was in the paranoid "reds-under-the-beds" 50's and 60's.
And what's really ironic, is that the natural inference of the original poster's comments is that India is an overtly aggressive nation just itching for a fight.
Who knows, perhaps it is. But here are a few facts: despite suffering several attacks on its own soil by suspected muslim terrorist* groups, including the murder of innocent men, women and children, a direct assault on its parliament, US and other foreign embassies, India has shown a great deal of restraint and has not resorted to using its "military might" to strike at terrorists beyond its own borders. It's used politics, via forums such as the UN, rather than force to pressure Pakistan to stop providing a safe haven for the terrorists*.
Compare and contrast that to the US reaction to similar circumstances. Now tell me who looks like the more violent nation.
As an aside, I find it incredulous that you can defend dropping nukes on civilians at all. The US aim, showing Japan that they had a weapon of mass destruction that could bring it to its knees, have been acheived by dropping the nukes on military rather than civilian targets - or even on an unpopulated region.
(That you defend the use of nukes by saying that it's not so bad compared to a concentration camp is laughable. A few paragraphs earlier you were making a point that just because the US did something bad during the Cold War it doesn't mean that India should do it too - isn't the same true here?)
Hypocrisy. The greatest luxury. Raise the double standard.
(* As someone famous once said, "terrorist" is what the big army calls the little army. Feel free to interchange the word with the phrase "freedom fighter", I do. But "terrorist" is just so much more interesting and sensationalist n'est pas?)
Slashdot Mirror
In my crystal ball I can see an email inviting Intel marketing people to an upcoming strategy meeting.
The subject line is becoming clear... it says... Stop Hammer Time!
No, definately not. The whole point is that the products of a non-kosher animal must not enter your body. This obviously includes eating, but also applies to transplants.
Does this means that a devout Jew can only accept organ, tissue and blood donations from people of the same faith? Where does this leave people who are involved in accidents that require immediate surgery? Or haemophiliacs?
Heh. I know he's only looking for his dreams but, speaking from experience, I think it's safe to say that that requires more than zero insertion force...
Having said that, heat dissipation can sometimes be a problem and there have been times when overclocking has been desirable.
Unfortunately, finding a suitable heat sink that doesn't interfere with operations can be problematic, although water cooling/immersion can be a more than pleasant solution - with the right component(s).
HMV the retailer is a seperate entity from HMV the record label, and each has its own priorities. So, to use a similar analogy, while HMV the record label would be concerned about Joe Average burning his own CDs at home, HMV the retailer will quite happily sell him a CD-R drive, media and a copy of Roxio Easy CD Creator to boot.
/. and you're reading this discussion then you either know what I'm talking about already or are intelligent enough to find it out for yourself.)
This is hardly a change of policy - record stores, including the likes of HMV and Virgin that have close ties with record labels themselves, have been selling blank media for years. Blank audio cassettes, video and DAT tapes, Mini Discs, floppy discs, etc all fall into this category.
Potentially, selling such media damages the record stores sales of pre-recorded material. However I've yet to see a record store that won't sell you a blank because it's scared of hurting its sales of more profitable items.
Another example is Sony. Sony the record label won't sell you a copy of either Attack Of The Clones or Spiderman soundtracks on CD without using a form of copy prevention that stops you from playing the CD in a PC. * However, Sony the hardware manufacturer will sell you a PC or games console that it says you can play your music CDs on but not one that will play these pups.
Furthermore, Sony will sell you a Mini Disc, MP3 or other digital recording device that is specifically designed to facilitate the digital reproduction of CDs without batting an eyelid that you could use the technology to make illegal copies of the music published by its own record labels.
(* In the UK at least. And, yes, I know that these technically aren't CDs as by definition they don't adhere to the relevant standards that would allow them to be described as such, but I've yet to see a popular description for these discs that is immediately understood by the music buying public. Anyhow, if you're on
The New York Times has an article about the web's one true growth industry: spam, fraud and porn. Societal meltdown or flourishing ecosystem? The talking heads debate.
/. karma system ("50 + 1 - 1 = 49", etc) has a worthy sucessor...
Spam, fraud and porn. One true growth industry.
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
And there was me thinking that should be three.
It looks as if the old
Err, just about everyone and his brother sells region-free DVD players outside the US. In fact, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a major European retailer that won't sell you a region-free player if that's what you want.
This is especially true in Britain where buying US-imported Region 1 encoded discs doesn't present a language barrier and, amongst DVD afficionados, is often the preferred option.
OK, I realise the reason why avid gamers who get immersed in EverQuest refer to the game as EverCrack in a light-hearted jab at themselves because the game is so addictive but doesn't using the Crack suffix just further damage the public's perception of the Internet, PC and console gaming and gamers in general?
Isn't it enough that TV and print media already make the best of every opportunity that they get to bash any of these three things?
If you believe the hype and hysteria then the Internet's full of paedophiles swapping pictures and preying on young children in chat rooms, games like GTA3, Gangsters, Tekken and Doom just glamorise and glorify violent behaviour and gamers are mal-adjusted, sedentary, social misfits with poor social skills that would rather sit on their fat asses all day than get a job, a friend or any kind of life.
(Don't even get me started on how the media regards RPGs - anyone old enough to remember the golden age of table-top games will remember how insane the media were about that "corrupting influence".)
EverQuest, like life itself, attracts many kinds of players. Some hardcore but most are casual. Some are openly aggressive but most are openly approachable. Some are complete jerks but most are just well-rounded human beings.
Bottom line is this: playing EverQuest is no big deal. Sure, if you're devoting every waking hour to it then you have a problem (or, given the way the EverQuest community works, a viable business venture) but then that's true of just about anything.
No, I don't think that all Americans share the same views on the French (or any other topic) but I do find it annoying that none of the people who find the time to post this kind of crap on /. have the balls to post under their own accounts.
If they enjoy practising their right of free speech so much shouldn't they at least have the guts to say "these are my views, this is who I am and I make no apologies for it"?
And, for the record, I am not French. What I am is bored of (and pissed off at) having to read this kind of junk on every discussion that has any kind of non-American interests mentioned.
Actually for some silly unknown reason Amercan and British boys were spilling their blood to save your country of cheese-eating surrender monkeys while your Grandmother was sucking off Gestapo officers for cigarettes and cheap wine.
Why do all xemophobic, racist idiots insist on posting as Anonymous Cowards? If you're so proud of your views that you feel the need to share them then why not let us know who you are?
You're just like the KKK - they hid behind their hoods and you hide behind the "Post Anonymously" option.
(Oh, and I find it funny that Americans endulge in France-bashing. If it wasn't for their help during the American War of Independence then it's highly unlikely that there would even be a USA as we know it. And who do you think gave the Statue of Liberty to the US as well?)
Odd, the title says 2.2 Trillion, the body says 2.2 Billion. Pick a number.
OK, I've done that. Can you guess what it is yet?
I don't know about the rest of the /. crowd but I extremely surprised by how much I enjoyed the first X-Men movie.
As an avid comic book reader (and a one-time X-Men fanatic) I was apprehensive about the film adaptation of my favourite band of super heroes.
After all, the track record of comic book characters on the silver screen wasn't exactly filled with success - Superman, Batman were both good movies but their follow-ups got progressively worse, Judge Dredd had so much potential (see Robocop, which even includes some classic Dredd on-liners) but was such a disappointment, The Punisher, etc. (The less said about Supergirl the better.)
Compared to all of these, X-Men rocked.
Not only was it true to the comic book in most regards but it got across the underlying moral message of the comic book title - that no matter what we look like on the outside or what we can do, we are all equal - without having to excessively spoonfeed the audience or dragging its feet.
OK, if we're nitpicking then Rogue shouldn't be a teenager and neither should Bobby (Iceman). Jean Grey should be called Marvel Girl - or Pheonix at a pinch - when in costume not Jean (did anyone else find it silly that her's was the only alter ego that didn't have a proper name?). Ororo should have either had a headpiece or a mohican hair cut. Toad should have been fatter and stupider. Mystique should have had a costume. It should have been the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
But, there are things that will work in comic books that won't work on screen. The writers allude to this when they have Wolverine question the fashion sense of the team's costumes, to which Cyclops replies "What would you prefer, gold spandex?" - any X-Men fan will recognise this immediately as a reference to Wolverine's own comic book costume, which was originally blue and gold and later orange and brown.
In fact, this was one of my favourite scenes in the movie, and even my girlfriend who wouldn't read a comic book if you paid her laughed along with the joke.
Bottom line is this: rather than nit-pick over minor details why don't you just enjoy the film?
Brian Singer, the cast and the crew did a great job. Would it kill you to acknowledge it?
Let's assume what you said holds true. If my company sends me to another state for 2 weeks to do a server installation or LAN setup or whatever in another office of the same company, then I would have to pay the taxes for the 2 weeks worked in that other state. Fill out the proper tax forms for each state to start working there, etc.
But I don't think that happens. When I go out of state for my job, I'm still "on the clock" (I'm not a contractor, I'm employed by and do work for the company that pays me directly) as far as the company's concerned, but I don't pay that state's taxes on wages.
Re-read my original post. I made it clear that I wsa making an assumption, based on what I knew to be true of pro sports athletes. I even said it was likely that, if the proportion of your work that takes place out of state is not significant, then it might well be unimportant to the states' bean counters.
Two week's out of state isn't significant (when you're employed for 52 weeks), especially if you're not a large earner. But MLB players spend half theit playing time on the road (81 of 162 games) and earn an average of $2.35 million (give or take a couple of thou).
No offense intended, but I think it's fair to say that someone like Alex Rodriguez earns more for one game (over $150,000 in salaries alone) than you or I make in a year. So, while chasing the tax he should be paying for a three game series is a profitable use of a state employee's time, chasing you for a couple of hundred dollars (if that) isn't quite the same deal.
And, who knows, technically you might be liable for out of state taxes when you're on the road for your company. Have you actually checked the issue with your accountant or are you just guessing?
IANAA (I am not an American) but I am a big NFL and MLB watcher. And I think that, along the way, I've spotted a potential answer to your question.
Obviously, MLB and NFL players are on the road a lot - one moment they'll be playing in California, the next they'll be in New York, then Texas and so on.
Now I'm not sure it's the case for NFL players (who will only spend eight or so days actively participating in their profession* outside their home state, where they'll play the rest of their games, train, etc) but it's true that MLB players (who will spend as much time on the road as they do at home) have to play state taxes where they are actually playing.
So, when Alex Rodriguez of the Texas Rangers plays a series in Oakland or Anaheim, then he has to pay Californian taxes on the relevant portion of his $25 million salary. When he plays a series against New York, then it's New York taxes he has to pay. And when he's playing at home, or at Houston, it's Texan taxes he's liable for.
The fact that he works for a Texas based organisation is irrelevant - the fact that he's physically doing his job in California, New York, etc is what's relevant.
In your case, I would assume that you would pay Ohio taxes for the time that you work from home and Indiana taxes for the time that you are in your parent office.
But, to quote Silence Of The Lambs, "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." It may be that, if you don't spend a significant portion of your time in Indiana, you don't have to worry about your occasional trips to the office.
Personally, I think you should clarify the issue with an accountant (doesn't the company have one that you can consult?) and even the relevant state authorities.
Good luck with your telecommuting. Hope it goes well. Don't forget to tell your friends that someone compared you to A-Rod...
(* I refuse to call it work.)
(** OK, so I lied. Work is a nice short word to use in this situation.)
Driving too fast is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.
Similarly, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.
It doesn't matter that some people can drive fast or drive and talk on a mobile phone without detriment to their driving skills, it matters that not all people can do it.
In your exact words, "setting arbritray non-scientific standards is a mal-application of justice". Is it? Or is it just what's practical and sensible?
Same with the cell-phone thing. I've been the in car with someone holding a meeting via cellphone, while the driver who was speaking and concentrating on the meeting performed some of the most skilled driving I've ever seen. Its completely dependent on the skill of the invovled person.
I really think what need is to get rid of most of the laws regarding that stuff - DWI, Cellhpone bans, all that junk.
Instead punish outcomes. If you are driving down the road and swerving in and out of lane, thats reckless endangerment and reckless driving. It doesnt matter if you were reaching for the radio, reaching for the phone, dropped a cigarette in your lap, or are drunk (if you are drunk when pulled over, you'd of course get arrested on the spot still - I am not suggesting we just write a summons and send them on the way).
And some people, such as race car drivers, can drive at speeds in excess of 150 mph with near complete control of their vehicles. The rational extension of your argument is that speed limits shouldn't exist either because there are people out there who could get to their destinations faster and just as safely without them.
You seem to forget that laws are in place to prevent unfavorable outcomes and tragedies just as much as they are there to punish transgressors.
The phrase "warchalking" is derived from the the hacking term "wardialling".
Hackers would programme their computers to search for all phone lines that returned data tones - ie, networks that they could hack into. This exhaustive searching was known as "wardialling".
Hence "warchalking", a similar process that uses chalk markings.
Also, driving around looking for unsecure wireless networks to tap into and possibly exploit is called "wardriving".
Who makes this stuff up? Well, I guess we all do.
LMAO. Can't you come up with something original?
you call it 'lenghty article'?
Maybe he does. Perhaps he has group therapy with a shrink just down the hallway from your "Dealing with Dyslexia" class.
Enjoy yourself and your new monitor!
If you're going to listen to this advice then I hope you've got a box of screen cleaning wipes handy.
I don't want to get into a discussion on how to use Google (because that would be even further off-topic) but what I was trying to illustrate is that "TWOK" isn't a commonly used acronym.
And I think I've proved that.
Using the abbreviation "/." on a site called "Slashdot" isn't exactly a leap of logic.
If you click on the YRO link on the left hand side of this page then you'll get taken to a page titled "Your Rights Online" - another no-brainer.
On a site that advocates the use of open source software, if you don't know that "GPL" stands for "General Public License" then you're in the wrong place. Similarly, anyone who's used a PC for more than five minutes will recognise "MS" as being "Microsoft" - hell, some of us out there still have a PC or two running MS-DOS.
"IANAL" is a commonly used Usenet abbreviation. If you've ever used the Internet for anything more than the WWW and FTP - the worldwide web and file transfer protocol for the benefit of the one person who will otherwise in delight in pointing out my own use of acronyms - then it's pretty damn hard to have missed that phrase, which of course stands for "I am not a lawyer".
But "TWOK"? Who uses "TWOK"? Not many people it would seem, if Google is correct - the ten most popular uses of "TWOK" include only two Star Trek related references, ranked seventh and tenth.
Before that seventh reference there are references to an Inupiat Eskimo Artist from Shishmaref, Alaska, a German maker of street lighting, a two kilometer road race and the stock symbol of a Californian company that locates and promotes new musical talent.
Now, if Trekers had latched on to "TWOK" in a big way don't you think it would be listed above any of those? (Remember, Google ranks pages by how popular they are, not by any other nefarious method.) And if hardcore Trekers who put up web pages and write (we)blogs haven't latched onto "TWOK" then what chance is there that casual Star Trek fans have?
Using acronyms where they will be recognised and understood is fine. But using them where they might be at all ambiguous without providing an explanation? Well that's just plain lazy or plain stupid or both.
And anyway, shouldn't the correct abbreviation of the second Star Trek motion picture be "STII:TWOK"? Isn't it called "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan"? And don't you think that that extra "STII:" makes all the difference between (in this story at least) instant recognition and bemusement for many people?
This isn't a rant about being "in on it". It's a simple request* for plain, understandable, conversation that the majority of people can follow without having to reference other resources.
(* OK, it's a rant. But it's a damn relevant one. IMHO.**)
(** This is a joke. Please don't try and come up with a witty retort. You'll just look as anal as I do right now.)
You're right, it was Jules' wallet, not Vincent's. Mea culpa.
My nick is like the inscription on Vincent's wallet in Pulp Fiction. It means I'm a bad mutha fucka.
The director's cut of TWOK kicks ass, but I'm guessing that the people who forked over $$$ for the DVD set are a bit miffed that they're not getting the extra goodies. The added scenes improve the movie more than you'd guess.
/. feel the need to insert an acronym or two just for the hell of it when, more often than not, the unabbreviated text would convey their message just as well.
Sorry to single you out but it's sad how many posters on
TWOK? Would it have killed you to write The Wrath Of Khan? I'm sure that a lot of people knew what you meant but what about the rest of us? Should we really need to rely on a Google search to work out what you're trying to say?
If I, a Star Trek fan who's seen all the shows and all the movies, have to scratch my head wondering what the hell you're talking about what do you think it's like for people who aren't Trek-obsessed?
Would the fifteen seconds that it would have cost you to provide a little clarity kill you?
I think you missed my point. I didn't say that it's right for India (or any nation) to use force, or the threat of force to achieve its agenda.
I didn't say that promoting their "military might", especially in the current political climate is to be applauded.
I'm not suggesting that stirring up nationalist sentiments and whipping the general population into a feeding frenzy is a particularly good thing.
What I said was, in response to the original poster's comments that this was true "especially [of] India" is that is true of all nations.
In my response I used the example of the Cold War but all of the above - the use of force, the projection of military might, the rampant nationalism - is just as true of the US today as it was in the paranoid "reds-under-the-beds" 50's and 60's.
And what's really ironic, is that the natural inference of the original poster's comments is that India is an overtly aggressive nation just itching for a fight.
Who knows, perhaps it is. But here are a few facts: despite suffering several attacks on its own soil by suspected muslim terrorist* groups, including the murder of innocent men, women and children, a direct assault on its parliament, US and other foreign embassies, India has shown a great deal of restraint and has not resorted to using its "military might" to strike at terrorists beyond its own borders. It's used politics, via forums such as the UN, rather than force to pressure Pakistan to stop providing a safe haven for the terrorists*.
Compare and contrast that to the US reaction to similar circumstances. Now tell me who looks like the more violent nation.
As an aside, I find it incredulous that you can defend dropping nukes on civilians at all. The US aim, showing Japan that they had a weapon of mass destruction that could bring it to its knees, have been acheived by dropping the nukes on military rather than civilian targets - or even on an unpopulated region.
(That you defend the use of nukes by saying that it's not so bad compared to a concentration camp is laughable. A few paragraphs earlier you were making a point that just because the US did something bad during the Cold War it doesn't mean that India should do it too - isn't the same true here?)
Hypocrisy. The greatest luxury. Raise the double standard.
(* As someone famous once said, "terrorist" is what the big army calls the little army. Feel free to interchange the word with the phrase "freedom fighter", I do. But "terrorist" is just so much more interesting and sensationalist n'est pas?)