Supreme court precedent is that states can't do what south dakota just did. The first time SD tries to take an out of state retailer to court for non-payment of taxes they will lose and the law will be invalidated unless the SC is willing to review and undo the previous precedent. The SD legislature can't override the supreme court.
There is a very valid reason that sales tax is too difficult to collect out of state, even with software. Louisiana has over 1000 sales tax districts and every single district has exceptions in place that tax some items and not others often at multiple different rates and just this year they revised the system almost completely by changing around which are taxed and which aren't. That's one state, this behavior isn't limited to that one state.
My state has relatively simple sales tax rules with only half a dozen districts with consistent taxing polices between them only different rates but this isn't the norm. The complication here is immense and if the business doesn't have a presence in the state they shouldn't be taxed unless the hosting state joins these voluntary state efforts or the fed's pass a national sales tax harmonizing law for out of state purchases.
A Fingerprint should never ever be used for passwords, along with every other biometric. You should only use biometrics for the login identity, not the password. Biometrics are far too easy to lift or duplicate.
Fingerprints are unique, but the FBI method of mapping them is NOT. You are equating two separate things. The FBI fingerprint systems don't look at the exact fingerprint, they create a dot pattern based on the whorls in the fingerprint and then use the dot pattern for matching. Those dot patterns are not going to be truly unique because fingerprints can generate the same dot pattern and be different.
This is a problem with the FBI computers that do the matching, NOT because fingerprints aren't unique.
Revolv http://www.businessinsider.com... There are others, you are perfectly capable of finding them. Don't be a fool. Google abandons products all the time, at least one major product every year that people have depended on.
Right before they abandon it as no longer interesting to the company while leaving everyone with a worthless product because it's cloud dependent, i.e. cannot function without the cloud.
You don't need an enemy to fool with it. A laser can't tell the difference between a blowing leaf, a squirrel or a soldier. Expect a LOT of false alarms. To the point that real alarms will be ignored because it's constantly false.
Every time in the past that they mechanized a factory (think the robots that replaced welders on the auto assembly lines) they traded 10 rotten low pay jobs for one to two very good high payed job servicing the robot, another Electrician slot and a few other higher paid jobs Keeping the robots going.
Maybe they will make Robot's that can service other Robots some day but that time isn't here and the technicians that do that work are very high paid because the work is complex and the knowledge required extensive. There is no question that the number of people involved in assembling a single car is way down from the early days but the positions that replaced those jobs are higher paid, higher skill and often jobs computers (robots) can't do.
There is prior precedent on encryption keys. It's old, from the early 80's when encryption was very new. It equated encryption as a key to the lock and there is a long precedent of allowing the courts to compel someone to turn over a key.
There is supreme court precedent tying encryption to providing the combination to a safe and making it legal to hold a defendant in contempt for refusing to provide the decryption key. Regardless of your feeling on it the Judge in this case is well within the national precedent.
The Defendant's out on this is to simply tell the court he no longer remembers the decryption key. That was his out all along, not to refuse to decrypt but to say he doesn't know the decryption key anymore.
You will already get charged with assaulting an officer if you hit the dog that is biting you. That's like 5 years guaranteed and a felony conviction on your record that needs to be reported on every job application as assaulting a police officer.
I love dogs. But treating attacking a K-9 unit the same as attacking a human is ridiculous. It's not that much different than charging them with assault for putting a finger on them, which is also ridiculous and common.
They also have a right to demand that their parents be present during questioning.
Not exactly. It's illegal to question a minor without their guardian present. If the police question your child without you being present you need to take legal action against the police and school district because they just violated your rights as the parent and your childs rights.
Yea, your right. You couldn't draw enough power from a single AP in a perfect conditions. Now if you could figure out how to reduce the numbers of APs so you could actually prove that.
Not a breakthrough but certainly doing something that should have been done years ago. Though RFID gets it's energy via radio we haven't had any CPU's that do it. This could power the equivalent of a fitbit without charging or a battery and that is at least new. It should have been done years ago.
There is so much RF energy out there in the WIFI spectrum I'm surprised it's taken this long to get a wifi powered CPU even if it has minuscule computing power. Afterall the arudino isn't going to win any compute contests but if you could use one without having to provide power they would be a lot more common.
Such skills are only valued by someone that thinks the ridiculously small cost of hardware is even relevant in the scheme of things. Such as a company that sees it's IT budget as an expense and not an investment in productivity. The TCO on the recycled hardware would be massive because the labor costs would dwarf any savings on hardware. And only a short sided penny pincher wouldn't see that.
In business IT costs you need to weigh three intangibles.
1. What's the cost of failure (in this case bankrupting the entire country). 2. What is the TCO when you factor in labor and other related costs beyond raw hardware price. 3. What's the differential productivity impact between each solution. (such as if the hardware is twice as expensive but makes IT twice as productive for the life of the hardware).
Penny pinching companies might look at 2 but they roundly ignore 1 and 3. Business school isn't what it used to be, they are training people to only look at raw costs and if you are lucky TCO. They provide almost no experience with 1 and 3.
You are apparently unaware of how finances work in states like Bangladesh.
1. The government apportions the appropriate money for a task assuming market. Rates 2. Department head siphons off 5% of the money and uses it to pay for Hookers and Blow. 3. The Department manager awards the contract to a friend who then gives them 10% of the money remaining back as cash. 4. The department representative responsible for ensuring the requirements are met then gets his 5% remaining kickback as well to look the other way as the requirements are not met. There are various other kickbacks as well, the city inspector and other involved. 5. The company now responsible for the implementation has lost about 25% of the total. They then taken their 50% profit and buy $10 off the shelf routers to do a job that had originally required commercial grade products with support contracts and zero day support.
The mindset of people in the Netherlands is very far from that of the socialist...
Yea, well except for the socialized medicine, free education, guaranteed housing and income, state pension system, extensive employement protections including a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, high minimum wage, public transport, free childcare......
Damn dirty communists, er I mean absolutely not socialist at all Danes.
English speaking countries have a LONG history of wanting to punish people taking public money to survive. Look into the poor houses of 1700s where by law they could serve nothing but gruel and the patrons were required to work 18 hours a day in back breaking labor or they didn't even get their gruel. They were forbidden from leaving, if they by chance got their hands on money it was immediately seized.
I have no doubt in my mind there are people right now in the US and reading this forum that think such a thing would be a great idea.
The set top box rules have them scared. It took the cable companies nearly 10 years to shape cable card into a controlled non-open platform and the companies are scared that the new attempt by the FCC to open up cable access will actually succeed so Comcast is working preemptively to try to head off the rules again. Just like Cable card when they asked the FCC permission to build a certification lab that became the gateway to denying any device that didn't work exactly how the cable companies wanted and as poorly as possible to discourage their use they will use they independent contracts to ensure any non-set top method of access is both crappy and second rate.
I own Roku devices but I don't trust Comcast and I know without a doubt in my mind this is another attempt to undermine open access. With a Roku contract they can build a channel that is both second rate and crappy in every regard and then point to that and tell customers that's what they get when they don't rent a box. Roku being the sellouts they are will also allow Comcast to do this.
Don't cheer this, recognize it for what it is, an attempt to end run the open access provisions by letting Comcast write the rules, just like they did with cable card.
The problem isn't that self-publishing doesn't work. The problem is that right now the people that self-publish are not getting proper editing done. That and companies like Amazon are allowing their systems to be abused by spammers. These are all solvable issues that are not directly related, but people like you would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Even the simplest actions like Amazon exerting simple editorial control for their 30% in the form of having the publication checked for basic grammar and content and removing the content that doesn't meet basic requirements would dramatically improve the market. All it would take is one major author to make the move and the system would likely change overnight. The publishers know this and provide lucrative contracts to keep the best authors, even at the expense of loosing money on such authors.
Lawyers tend to do anything that will generate billable hours if they aren't leashed to seek permission before taking action. Particularly given the majorly huge surplus in lawyers that exists right now. This will only get worse as the years go on because law schools are still graduating far too many lawyers for any of them to actually have jobs without lawyers doing stuff like this to generate billable hours. The Sanders campaign should be smart enough to realize this and put a leash on the lawyers that says you don't do anything without asking first.
Public person's are fair game, particularly politicians. You can do whatever you want with their likeness. It's the trade off for being a politician. The standard the court uses in such situations is malicious speech. It has to be untrue and be deliberately malicious. Such a standard is damn near impossible to prove because it requires the state of mind of the person that did it and unless you can get them to admit it you will lose.
There is a small exception to this and that is trademark. If they are using anything other than just a picture of the person, say the official campaign trademark I'm not sure where that will fall. But even a slight alteration for parody is going to be strictly legal. They probably have rights to protect the exact campaign trademark as long as it's very strictly used and is unique. A photo of the person isn't unique.
Though I do find the people claiming Trump didn't do something similar to be excessively funny. Hell Trump is on record saying he wants to alter the First Amendment so he can sue more people who say mean things about him. But then neither the left or the right really value the first amendment speech protections anymore. Both sides would happily add speech restrictions as long as it was restrictions on the "right speech". Fortunately they disagree about the speech to ban so the public has been relatively protected from their stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Supreme court precedent is that states can't do what south dakota just did. The first time SD tries to take an out of state retailer to court for non-payment of taxes they will lose and the law will be invalidated unless the SC is willing to review and undo the previous precedent. The SD legislature can't override the supreme court.
There is a very valid reason that sales tax is too difficult to collect out of state, even with software. Louisiana has over 1000 sales tax districts and every single district has exceptions in place that tax some items and not others often at multiple different rates and just this year they revised the system almost completely by changing around which are taxed and which aren't. That's one state, this behavior isn't limited to that one state.
My state has relatively simple sales tax rules with only half a dozen districts with consistent taxing polices between them only different rates but this isn't the norm. The complication here is immense and if the business doesn't have a presence in the state they shouldn't be taxed unless the hosting state joins these voluntary state efforts or the fed's pass a national sales tax harmonizing law for out of state purchases.
Those are really the only two options IMO.
A Fingerprint should never ever be used for passwords, along with every other biometric. You should only use biometrics for the login identity, not the password. Biometrics are far too easy to lift or duplicate.
Fingerprints are unique, but the FBI method of mapping them is NOT. You are equating two separate things. The FBI fingerprint systems don't look at the exact fingerprint, they create a dot pattern based on the whorls in the fingerprint and then use the dot pattern for matching. Those dot patterns are not going to be truly unique because fingerprints can generate the same dot pattern and be different.
This is a problem with the FBI computers that do the matching, NOT because fingerprints aren't unique.
That close to a white dwarf start it's not going to have an atmosphere or any life if what we know about white dwarf star creation is at all true.
It was 1970, he's lucky the damn thing didn't explode on the table during surgery.
Revolv http://www.businessinsider.com...
There are others, you are perfectly capable of finding them. Don't be a fool. Google abandons products all the time, at least one major product every year that people have depended on.
Right before they abandon it as no longer interesting to the company while leaving everyone with a worthless product because it's cloud dependent, i.e. cannot function without the cloud.
I'm sure the company will be absolutely happy to comply.
You don't need an enemy to fool with it. A laser can't tell the difference between a blowing leaf, a squirrel or a soldier. Expect a LOT of false alarms. To the point that real alarms will be ignored because it's constantly false.
Every time in the past that they mechanized a factory (think the robots that replaced welders on the auto assembly lines) they traded 10 rotten low pay jobs for one to two very good high payed job servicing the robot, another Electrician slot and a few other higher paid jobs Keeping the robots going.
Maybe they will make Robot's that can service other Robots some day but that time isn't here and the technicians that do that work are very high paid because the work is complex and the knowledge required extensive. There is no question that the number of people involved in assembling a single car is way down from the early days but the positions that replaced those jobs are higher paid, higher skill and often jobs computers (robots) can't do.
There is prior precedent on encryption keys. It's old, from the early 80's when encryption was very new. It equated encryption as a key to the lock and there is a long precedent of allowing the courts to compel someone to turn over a key.
There is supreme court precedent tying encryption to providing the combination to a safe and making it legal to hold a defendant in contempt for refusing to provide the decryption key. Regardless of your feeling on it the Judge in this case is well within the national precedent.
The Defendant's out on this is to simply tell the court he no longer remembers the decryption key. That was his out all along, not to refuse to decrypt but to say he doesn't know the decryption key anymore.
You will already get charged with assaulting an officer if you hit the dog that is biting you. That's like 5 years guaranteed and a felony conviction on your record that needs to be reported on every job application as assaulting a police officer.
I love dogs. But treating attacking a K-9 unit the same as attacking a human is ridiculous. It's not that much different than charging them with assault for putting a finger on them, which is also ridiculous and common.
Not exactly. It's illegal to question a minor without their guardian present. If the police question your child without you being present you need to take legal action against the police and school district because they just violated your rights as the parent and your childs rights.
Yea, your right. You couldn't draw enough power from a single AP in a perfect conditions. Now if you could figure out how to reduce the numbers of APs so you could actually prove that.
Not a breakthrough but certainly doing something that should have been done years ago. Though RFID gets it's energy via radio we haven't had any CPU's that do it. This could power the equivalent of a fitbit without charging or a battery and that is at least new. It should have been done years ago.
There is so much RF energy out there in the WIFI spectrum I'm surprised it's taken this long to get a wifi powered CPU even if it has minuscule computing power. Afterall the arudino isn't going to win any compute contests but if you could use one without having to provide power they would be a lot more common.
Such skills are only valued by someone that thinks the ridiculously small cost of hardware is even relevant in the scheme of things. Such as a company that sees it's IT budget as an expense and not an investment in productivity. The TCO on the recycled hardware would be massive because the labor costs would dwarf any savings on hardware. And only a short sided penny pincher wouldn't see that.
In business IT costs you need to weigh three intangibles.
1. What's the cost of failure (in this case bankrupting the entire country).
2. What is the TCO when you factor in labor and other related costs beyond raw hardware price.
3. What's the differential productivity impact between each solution. (such as if the hardware is twice as expensive but makes IT twice as productive for the life of the hardware).
Penny pinching companies might look at 2 but they roundly ignore 1 and 3. Business school isn't what it used to be, they are training people to only look at raw costs and if you are lucky TCO. They provide almost no experience with 1 and 3.
You are apparently unaware of how finances work in states like Bangladesh.
1. The government apportions the appropriate money for a task assuming market. Rates
2. Department head siphons off 5% of the money and uses it to pay for Hookers and Blow.
3. The Department manager awards the contract to a friend who then gives them 10% of the money remaining back as cash.
4. The department representative responsible for ensuring the requirements are met then gets his 5% remaining kickback as well to look the other way as the requirements are not met. There are various other kickbacks as well, the city inspector and other involved.
5. The company now responsible for the implementation has lost about 25% of the total. They then taken their 50% profit and buy $10 off the shelf routers to do a job that had originally required commercial grade products with support contracts and zero day support.
Yea, well except for the socialized medicine, free education, guaranteed housing and income, state pension system, extensive employement protections including a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, high minimum wage, public transport, free childcare......
Damn dirty communists, er I mean absolutely not socialist at all Danes.
Smoking Ruin.
Made me think of the economic policies of Bobby Jindal and Sam Brownback.
English speaking countries have a LONG history of wanting to punish people taking public money to survive. Look into the poor houses of 1700s where by law they could serve nothing but gruel and the patrons were required to work 18 hours a day in back breaking labor or they didn't even get their gruel. They were forbidden from leaving, if they by chance got their hands on money it was immediately seized.
I have no doubt in my mind there are people right now in the US and reading this forum that think such a thing would be a great idea.
The set top box rules have them scared. It took the cable companies nearly 10 years to shape cable card into a controlled non-open platform and the companies are scared that the new attempt by the FCC to open up cable access will actually succeed so Comcast is working preemptively to try to head off the rules again. Just like Cable card when they asked the FCC permission to build a certification lab that became the gateway to denying any device that didn't work exactly how the cable companies wanted and as poorly as possible to discourage their use they will use they independent contracts to ensure any non-set top method of access is both crappy and second rate.
I own Roku devices but I don't trust Comcast and I know without a doubt in my mind this is another attempt to undermine open access. With a Roku contract they can build a channel that is both second rate and crappy in every regard and then point to that and tell customers that's what they get when they don't rent a box. Roku being the sellouts they are will also allow Comcast to do this.
Don't cheer this, recognize it for what it is, an attempt to end run the open access provisions by letting Comcast write the rules, just like they did with cable card.
The problem isn't that self-publishing doesn't work. The problem is that right now the people that self-publish are not getting proper editing done. That and companies like Amazon are allowing their systems to be abused by spammers. These are all solvable issues that are not directly related, but people like you would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Even the simplest actions like Amazon exerting simple editorial control for their 30% in the form of having the publication checked for basic grammar and content and removing the content that doesn't meet basic requirements would dramatically improve the market. All it would take is one major author to make the move and the system would likely change overnight. The publishers know this and provide lucrative contracts to keep the best authors, even at the expense of loosing money on such authors.
Lawyers tend to do anything that will generate billable hours if they aren't leashed to seek permission before taking action. Particularly given the majorly huge surplus in lawyers that exists right now. This will only get worse as the years go on because law schools are still graduating far too many lawyers for any of them to actually have jobs without lawyers doing stuff like this to generate billable hours. The Sanders campaign should be smart enough to realize this and put a leash on the lawyers that says you don't do anything without asking first.
Public person's are fair game, particularly politicians. You can do whatever you want with their likeness. It's the trade off for being a politician. The standard the court uses in such situations is malicious speech. It has to be untrue and be deliberately malicious. Such a standard is damn near impossible to prove because it requires the state of mind of the person that did it and unless you can get them to admit it you will lose.
There is a small exception to this and that is trademark. If they are using anything other than just a picture of the person, say the official campaign trademark I'm not sure where that will fall. But even a slight alteration for parody is going to be strictly legal. They probably have rights to protect the exact campaign trademark as long as it's very strictly used and is unique. A photo of the person isn't unique.
Though I do find the people claiming Trump didn't do something similar to be excessively funny. Hell Trump is on record saying he wants to alter the First Amendment so he can sue more people who say mean things about him. But then neither the left or the right really value the first amendment speech protections anymore. Both sides would happily add speech restrictions as long as it was restrictions on the "right speech". Fortunately they disagree about the speech to ban so the public has been relatively protected from their stupidity.