Are you on crack? Nobody knows Apple Records? They have been around since 1968 and have been releasing best selling albums and cds throughout. They just released the Beatles' Anthology DVD in April. The Beatles are the best selling band of all time and their music continues to be best sellers no matter how they repackage it.
Apple Corp is in no danger of going out of business (especially since it is owned by some obscenely rich individuals) and is only reprimanding Apple for violating their earlier agreement.
You've been trolled. He is actually a pretty famous troll who had to post as AC because he posts -1 otherwise. That United States Code doesn't even exist. Fair use for Trademarks is basically only when using the term as a description of the trademark holder's property.
Just for edification. Title 41 of the USC actually refers to public contracts (such as war supplies).
Saying that you can't tell the difference between a 10 yr old and an 18 yr old is the ignorance I am referring to. I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Or are you just trolling to annoy me?
In order to be tried as an adult the 14 year would have to commit a violent crime. If he raped and took pictures of the 17 yr old girl then he absolutely would be tried as an adult. The only hard cut off point of being tried as an adult is 18. Anything younger than that is the decision of the prosecutors and the court.
And how would the 17yr old girl ever be tried for producing child porn? You don't arrest the little girls who are victims of porn normally do you?
Finally, a naked picture of a 17 yr old girl would not get anybody arrested. Go to Barnes and Nobles and take a look at some of the "art" books. Plenty of under 18 girls in there who are fully naked.
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
If you go searching for a child porn site, find one, and then sign up I am not sure how that is entrapment. Now if you went searching for legit porn, found was appeared to be a legal site, signed up and it had a section with child porn that you clicked on whether inadvertently or not then that would be entrapment.
Um. Pot calling kettle black? You introduce no evidence and call me a troll? Perhaps you should look at my history before condemning me as such. And perhaps you should say that logged in.
Well if that is the case then you should tell them to update their policy because it makes no mention of 2.4 Ghz phones. Sounds to me like you asked some lacky who didn't know the difference one way or the other.
Sorry but students don't hold leases just because they can't move in or out anytime. That is not the only characteristic of a lease. And as I said it is a moot point since obviously it is in whatever agreement the student signs at the beginning of the year.
You didn't even address my second issue. You just repeated exactly what you said the first time.
You should really preface your post with IANAL because you obviously didn't consult with your lawyers before posting.
College students do not hold leases on their dorms and even if they did it is quite obvious that this is now included.
The college is not regulating the spectrum in anyway. They are not saying you can use 2.4Ghz phones. They are not saying that you can't use the airwaves in anyway. They are banning a specific piece of equipment. As somebody else pointed out it is just like banning hot plates and microwaves. They aren't telling you that you can't eat in the dorm.
Nice link. First, it has to do with receiving video using an antenna or satellite dish and not setting up wireless networks. Second it only affects a person who has an "ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control" (which does not apply to college students in dorms). Finally, it even says it does not cover "antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations." Sounds like a WAP or Wireless Router to me.
Re:US currency Legal Tender
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So you're saying you'll take the black guy's $100 bill because you might get sued, but you won't take the white guy's b/c he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
No. That is discriminating based on color. Didn't I just say that was wrong?
No one should be forced to make a sale. I am not sure how you can argue against that. Forget about the currency for a second. Why should I ever be forced to sell something when I don't want to?
And you obviously don't realize that the government paying 75% on counterfeit bills means you and I will actually be paying for counterfeit bills. That is tax payer money we are talking about. And what would be the incentive to not abuse the system? If I know that I will get $75 on a $100 counterfeit I can just tell the person passing it that I will take it at $50 and make $25 off of taxpayers.
There are plenty of ways to detect counterfeit bills these days. And after working for a few years in a bank I can tell you that you can tell the difference just by the feel with enough practice.
Re:US currency Legal Tender
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why should it be illegal? I don't agree with any law that says that I must be forced to sell to you (which is essentially what you are saying). It is my business and my choice whether I let you pay for a $2 candy bar with a $100 bill. Now if I chose to not sell to you because of race, color or creed then you might have a case.
1 - Does this really surprise anybody? As a society we have become more accepting of a certain level of sexuality and violence in television and movies. This is nothing new. I am sure you could go back each decade for the last 80 years and make the same conclusions.
2 - Those specific set of standards they include according to the rest of the article include "biblical values/morals". Do we really want that as the basis for our rating system? I would imagine that anything remotely homosexual would immediately bring about an R rating. Saying Jesus Christ or God damn would also be an instant R.
Nope. Much older than that. There is evidence of it in Norse mythology and Ancient Rome. Some believe that it is considered unlucky because it follows such a nice number as 12. 12 is a nice round number that is easily divisible and it is very popular with numerologists - "12 signs of the zodiac, 12 gods of Olympus, 12 labors of Hercules, 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 apostles of Jesus". 13 on the other hand is prime and is really a bastard. Try splitting 3 pizzas amongst 13 people.
I handle this one for you. How old were you when you were born? Your first year of life you were zero years old (which is why the measure it in months). That means that Linux is starting its 14th year of life now that it is 13.
Here's a trick for you. Fill a cooler with ice AND water. Settle the beer down in the cooler. Make sure you close the lid when not removing beer. Unless you are tailgating for weeks at a time you should be ok even tailgating at Arizona State in September.
In the US is is not legally possible to have a consentual sexual relationship with a subordinate.
Say what? Any reference to what law covers that? I mean I can see it being the case in practice but I wasn't aware of any real law. Many companies ban the practice but that doesn't make it against the law.
Sorry. I should have said typically or in 90% of cases you exercise and sell the same day. Of course, unless your options expired soon this would make no sense.
I assume the rest of the post was for the benefit of the original poster since it basically rehashes what I said.
The real point of my post is that he cannot be paying taxes if he didn't exercise which is what he seems to be claiming.
Regular stock option - Pay tax when you exercise whether you sell or not.
ISO - Pay tax when you sell. Perhaps pay AMT when you exercise if you qualify.
Either way you have to exercise the option first. There is no way that he paid taxes on an unexercised stock option. It just doesn't exist even with AMT.
Those definitely were not stock options then. When you exercise options you buy and sell immediately. You must have gotten a stock grant as part of your package which is basically like getting cash and is fully taxable. It wasn't the IRS that screwed you but your ex-company. Sucks either way. As for what you could have done tax wise - I am a CPA but worked as an auditor not a tax accountant. I hate doing even my own taxes.
You must have gotten some non-typical stock options. Typically you don't pay taxes on stock options until you exercise them. If you were able to sell the stock to pay the taxes then you obviously didn't have options but just a regular stock grant (which is obviously taxable). When you get options they are worthless until the stock price is higher than the option price (trust me I have plenty of those fun $40 options - $17 stock prices).
They must get some revenue - they are making a profit. And they aren't the first company to "bungle" and IPO. The SEC rules are quite daunting and it is easy to slip up. They were just so high profile that you read about each one.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you on crack? Nobody knows Apple Records? They have been around since 1968 and have been releasing best selling albums and cds throughout. They just released the Beatles' Anthology DVD in April. The Beatles are the best selling band of all time and their music continues to be best sellers no matter how they repackage it.
Apple Corp is in no danger of going out of business (especially since it is owned by some obscenely rich individuals) and is only reprimanding Apple for violating their earlier agreement.
You've been trolled. He is actually a pretty famous troll who had to post as AC because he posts -1 otherwise. That United States Code doesn't even exist. Fair use for Trademarks is basically only when using the term as a description of the trademark holder's property.
Just for edification. Title 41 of the USC actually refers to public contracts (such as war supplies).
Saying that you can't tell the difference between a 10 yr old and an 18 yr old is the ignorance I am referring to. I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Or are you just trolling to annoy me?
It is pretty easy to tell an 18 yr old girl from a 10 yr old and ignorance is not a defense.
In order to be tried as an adult the 14 year would have to commit a violent crime. If he raped and took pictures of the 17 yr old girl then he absolutely would be tried as an adult. The only hard cut off point of being tried as an adult is 18. Anything younger than that is the decision of the prosecutors and the court.
And how would the 17yr old girl ever be tried for producing child porn? You don't arrest the little girls who are victims of porn normally do you?
Finally, a naked picture of a 17 yr old girl would not get anybody arrested. Go to Barnes and Nobles and take a look at some of the "art" books. Plenty of under 18 girls in there who are fully naked.
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
If you go searching for a child porn site, find one, and then sign up I am not sure how that is entrapment. Now if you went searching for legit porn, found was appeared to be a legal site, signed up and it had a section with child porn that you clicked on whether inadvertently or not then that would be entrapment.
Um. Pot calling kettle black? You introduce no evidence and call me a troll? Perhaps you should look at my history before condemning me as such. And perhaps you should say that logged in.
Well if that is the case then you should tell them to update their policy because it makes no mention of 2.4 Ghz phones. Sounds to me like you asked some lacky who didn't know the difference one way or the other.
Sorry but students don't hold leases just because they can't move in or out anytime. That is not the only characteristic of a lease. And as I said it is a moot point since obviously it is in whatever agreement the student signs at the beginning of the year.
You didn't even address my second issue. You just repeated exactly what you said the first time.
You should really preface your post with IANAL because you obviously didn't consult with your lawyers before posting.
College students do not hold leases on their dorms and even if they did it is quite obvious that this is now included.
The college is not regulating the spectrum in anyway. They are not saying you can use 2.4Ghz phones. They are not saying that you can't use the airwaves in anyway. They are banning a specific piece of equipment. As somebody else pointed out it is just like banning hot plates and microwaves. They aren't telling you that you can't eat in the dorm.
Nice link. First, it has to do with receiving video using an antenna or satellite dish and not setting up wireless networks. Second it only affects a person who has an "ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control" (which does not apply to college students in dorms). Finally, it even says it does not cover "antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations." Sounds like a WAP or Wireless Router to me.
So you're saying you'll take the black guy's $100 bill because you might get sued, but you won't take the white guy's b/c he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
No. That is discriminating based on color. Didn't I just say that was wrong?
No one should be forced to make a sale. I am not sure how you can argue against that. Forget about the currency for a second. Why should I ever be forced to sell something when I don't want to?
And you obviously don't realize that the government paying 75% on counterfeit bills means you and I will actually be paying for counterfeit bills. That is tax payer money we are talking about. And what would be the incentive to not abuse the system? If I know that I will get $75 on a $100 counterfeit I can just tell the person passing it that I will take it at $50 and make $25 off of taxpayers.
There are plenty of ways to detect counterfeit bills these days. And after working for a few years in a bank I can tell you that you can tell the difference just by the feel with enough practice.
Why should it be illegal? I don't agree with any law that says that I must be forced to sell to you (which is essentially what you are saying). It is my business and my choice whether I let you pay for a $2 candy bar with a $100 bill. Now if I chose to not sell to you because of race, color or creed then you might have a case.
Two points:
1 - Does this really surprise anybody? As a society we have become more accepting of a certain level of sexuality and violence in television and movies. This is nothing new. I am sure you could go back each decade for the last 80 years and make the same conclusions.
2 - Those specific set of standards they include according to the rest of the article include "biblical values/morals". Do we really want that as the basis for our rating system? I would imagine that anything remotely homosexual would immediately bring about an R rating. Saying Jesus Christ or God damn would also be an instant R.
No - our age is zero based but the current year is one based. You can't mix and match based on your preference.
Age 0 - Year 1
Age 1 - Year 2
.
.
.
Age 13 - Year 14
Nope. Much older than that. There is evidence of it in Norse mythology and Ancient Rome. Some believe that it is considered unlucky because it follows such a nice number as 12. 12 is a nice round number that is easily divisible and it is very popular with numerologists - "12 signs of the zodiac, 12 gods of Olympus, 12 labors of Hercules, 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 apostles of Jesus". 13 on the other hand is prime and is really a bastard. Try splitting 3 pizzas amongst 13 people.
I handle this one for you. How old were you when you were born? Your first year of life you were zero years old (which is why the measure it in months). That means that Linux is starting its 14th year of life now that it is 13.
Here's a trick for you. Fill a cooler with ice AND water. Settle the beer down in the cooler. Make sure you close the lid when not removing beer. Unless you are tailgating for weeks at a time you should be ok even tailgating at Arizona State in September.
Actually Russia and Cuba are separated by International waters. You might as well say that we border the United Kingdom, Portugal, etc.
In the US is is not legally possible to have a consentual sexual relationship with a subordinate.
Say what? Any reference to what law covers that? I mean I can see it being the case in practice but I wasn't aware of any real law. Many companies ban the practice but that doesn't make it against the law.
Sorry. I should have said typically or in 90% of cases you exercise and sell the same day. Of course, unless your options expired soon this would make no sense.
I assume the rest of the post was for the benefit of the original poster since it basically rehashes what I said.
The real point of my post is that he cannot be paying taxes if he didn't exercise which is what he seems to be claiming.
Regular stock option - Pay tax when you exercise whether you sell or not.
ISO - Pay tax when you sell. Perhaps pay AMT when you exercise if you qualify.
Either way you have to exercise the option first. There is no way that he paid taxes on an unexercised stock option. It just doesn't exist even with AMT.
Those definitely were not stock options then. When you exercise options you buy and sell immediately. You must have gotten a stock grant as part of your package which is basically like getting cash and is fully taxable. It wasn't the IRS that screwed you but your ex-company. Sucks either way. As for what you could have done tax wise - I am a CPA but worked as an auditor not a tax accountant. I hate doing even my own taxes.
You must have gotten some non-typical stock options. Typically you don't pay taxes on stock options until you exercise them. If you were able to sell the stock to pay the taxes then you obviously didn't have options but just a regular stock grant (which is obviously taxable). When you get options they are worthless until the stock price is higher than the option price (trust me I have plenty of those fun $40 options - $17 stock prices).
And not the IRS didn't steal any money from you.
They must get some revenue - they are making a profit. And they aren't the first company to "bungle" and IPO. The SEC rules are quite daunting and it is easy to slip up. They were just so high profile that you read about each one.