If the industry is managed in such a way that they can't buffer a few weeks of supply lag
Pretty much the entire world works this way now. It's called just in time manufacturing, and it is one of the many efficiencies that enabled Toyota and Honda to ride roughshod over Detroit in the 70s and 80s. It's central to Wal-Mart's profitability. You save money by not having large stocks on hand - you don't have to pay to warehouse them, and you're not stuck with a large stock of unsellable items when you change the underlying product.
That's the custom for services and for food and drink, but hard goods nearly always involve payment before you're allowed to take legal possession. And the sales terms can be whatever the shop owner wants them to be.
Until they prosecute you for conspiracy to violate the underlying law. If it's big enough, the local US Attorney might even make a RICO case out of you.
If you don't do due diligence on the loan, the courts aren't going to treat them as legitimate loans. You'll still be guilty.
That's a store that has a business presence. You're generally exempt as a private citizen from collecting sales tax until your total income goes over a threshold amount.
The difference is whether you do proper due diligence to create a debt, and whether your standard terms include interest, and identification, and all the other stuff you do before a loan is issued. You do that if you issue a legitimate IOU. If you are issuing IOUs to Mickey Mouse, 123 Main St, which you pay immediately in cash, they'll nail you for conspiracy to violate the law in question, and once they prove that they'll nail you on the underlying offense.
The Internet we're using wasn't paid for by the US government. The NSF backbone AUP prevented real commercialization of the Internet. When the government got out of the business, the private sector built what we use today. Consider the other technologies: ALOHANET and Ethernet weren't federal projects, and by the late 80's McNealy was running around saying "the network is the computer". There were private networking companies. We were obviously about to wire everything for data. I'd say that the best thing the federal government did for the Internet was the breakup of Ma Bell that (however briefly) smashed the telecom monopoly and made people get used to the idea of not paying per-byte charges (which AT&T would definitely have imposed).
This thread should be about the idea of limits on the proper size of the federal government and about how we want to cut back when it becomes impossible for us to borrow money. Instead it's about NSFNet. It's not that the government can't do amazing things - it can. It's that it can make economically foolish decisions with other people's money (after all, if they made sense, private companies would do them). And we need to talk about how much of that is really appropriate.
The Eurozone has been around since 1999 as an accounting entity. Twelve years later, it's about to explode. The United States has been around, under its current government, since 1787, and under its current federal relationship since 1865. Obviously, there's something different here.
Taxes to the feds aren't an investment, and the dollars don't flow back to the people who paid them - my federal taxes are actually slightly higher in a red state than they would be in a blue one, because I don't get to deduct as much in state and local taxes from my income. Once you count the cost of private education for kids (not deductible), the total cost of living (excluding the base cost of housing) might be the same.
States that are net recipients are usually so because of the presence of retirees (FL, AZ), military bases (TX, NC), or vast quantities of shit-poor idiots getting welfare.
What makes you think it's all whites? Blacks are even more socially conservative than whites in the South (and generally nationwide, from what I understand).
More to the point, you seem to think that it matters. You know, On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 - something like 500 years after the Renaissance hit full swing. Britain had had nearly 100 years of the Industrial Revolution up to that point. Belief in creationism even a large portion of society, silly though it is, isn't really that big of a deal.
Mississippi has under 3 million people in an area larger than the four largest counties in California combined - only a little less than a third of the entire state of California. Vehicle emissions aren't a priority because there just aren't enough of them to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
If the industry is managed in such a way that they can't buffer a few weeks of supply lag
Pretty much the entire world works this way now. It's called just in time manufacturing, and it is one of the many efficiencies that enabled Toyota and Honda to ride roughshod over Detroit in the 70s and 80s. It's central to Wal-Mart's profitability. You save money by not having large stocks on hand - you don't have to pay to warehouse them, and you're not stuck with a large stock of unsellable items when you change the underlying product.
Actually, you talked about "municipalities", not "cities", so I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that West Podunk was going to deploy a fleet.
You keep talking about what people do and don't need. I'm trying to point out that what they want is much more important.
It's a lot easier in the state senate (well, maybe not in California).
More than once a month. That's how. I mean, I like my shotguns and all, but I don't usually add to my collection more than once a month.
No, if the buyer hands the item back and says "no deal", there is no debt and no transaction. Until all details are completed, there is no sale.
If I fail to declare the conditions of the transaction before it starts, then I have to accept the cash.
No, not really. If you're a store, you can just say "I can't make that change" and refuse to complete the sale.
You don't grasp the idea of "terms of sale", do you?
Er, are you on crack? You just argued that every price-labeled item in a store is an obligation to accept cash. It's not.
The store owner is free to reject any of those methods of payment, however. Just like they're free to reject cash.
That's the custom for services and for food and drink, but hard goods nearly always involve payment before you're allowed to take legal possession. And the sales terms can be whatever the shop owner wants them to be.
Until they prosecute you for conspiracy to violate the underlying law. If it's big enough, the local US Attorney might even make a RICO case out of you.
If you don't do due diligence on the loan, the courts aren't going to treat them as legitimate loans. You'll still be guilty.
Unless you can produce those verbal contract terms, they're going to nail you for conspiracy to violate the law at issue here.
That's a store that has a business presence. You're generally exempt as a private citizen from collecting sales tax until your total income goes over a threshold amount.
The difference is whether you do proper due diligence to create a debt, and whether your standard terms include interest, and identification, and all the other stuff you do before a loan is issued. You do that if you issue a legitimate IOU. If you are issuing IOUs to Mickey Mouse, 123 Main St, which you pay immediately in cash, they'll nail you for conspiracy to violate the law in question, and once they prove that they'll nail you on the underlying offense.
The Internet we're using wasn't paid for by the US government. The NSF backbone AUP prevented real commercialization of the Internet. When the government got out of the business, the private sector built what we use today. Consider the other technologies: ALOHANET and Ethernet weren't federal projects, and by the late 80's McNealy was running around saying "the network is the computer". There were private networking companies. We were obviously about to wire everything for data. I'd say that the best thing the federal government did for the Internet was the breakup of Ma Bell that (however briefly) smashed the telecom monopoly and made people get used to the idea of not paying per-byte charges (which AT&T would definitely have imposed).
This thread should be about the idea of limits on the proper size of the federal government and about how we want to cut back when it becomes impossible for us to borrow money. Instead it's about NSFNet. It's not that the government can't do amazing things - it can. It's that it can make economically foolish decisions with other people's money (after all, if they made sense, private companies would do them). And we need to talk about how much of that is really appropriate.
Much hatred there is in this one...
You have to start somewhere.
the CDC
So far as I know, every state already has a Department of Health, and they are indeed responsible for tracking epidemics within their own borders.
The Eurozone has been around since 1999 as an accounting entity. Twelve years later, it's about to explode. The United States has been around, under its current government, since 1787, and under its current federal relationship since 1865. Obviously, there's something different here.
The 1993 version of the Internet didn't look like this. Trust me on that one.
Taxes to the feds aren't an investment, and the dollars don't flow back to the people who paid them - my federal taxes are actually slightly higher in a red state than they would be in a blue one, because I don't get to deduct as much in state and local taxes from my income. Once you count the cost of private education for kids (not deductible), the total cost of living (excluding the base cost of housing) might be the same.
States that are net recipients are usually so because of the presence of retirees (FL, AZ), military bases (TX, NC), or vast quantities of shit-poor idiots getting welfare.
"Promoting the general welfare" and "providing the general populace with welfare" aren't the same thing.
bible banging southern white trash
What makes you think it's all whites? Blacks are even more socially conservative than whites in the South (and generally nationwide, from what I understand).
More to the point, you seem to think that it matters. You know, On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 - something like 500 years after the Renaissance hit full swing. Britain had had nearly 100 years of the Industrial Revolution up to that point. Belief in creationism even a large portion of society, silly though it is, isn't really that big of a deal.
Mississippi has under 3 million people in an area larger than the four largest counties in California combined - only a little less than a third of the entire state of California. Vehicle emissions aren't a priority because there just aren't enough of them to matter.
But only the locals (whether alive or dead, depends on your area) get to vote.