Republicans like Mitt Romney and the Tard Party love wasting money on military boondoggles.
Possibly.
Alas, this doesn't prove your point. TFA describes it as requiring the military to figure out how much it would cost to maintain and/or perfect the hardware used in the research program.
It does NOT include any money allocated for the purpose....
So it's not job creation - there are only a handful of employees in each office. There's no taxes to collect from the corp. and a relatively small amount from income tax from the employees. It looks like MS and Apple are just using Nevada and really giving little back.
So? Not like a handful of employees and one office are particularly straining Nevada's infrastructure or anything.'
The IRS doesn't care about your State taxes, so why would they "call you out" about it?
Other "enforcement agencies", unless they're at the Federal level, don't have legal authority outside their own State (or local jurisdiction), so they can't "call you out" either.
IF "other enforcement agencies" happen to be Federal, they're like the IRS - they don't care, it's a State matter.
Note, by the way, that this article is NOT about Microsoft doing "tax evasion" (which is a crime), but about Microsoft doing "tax avoidance" (which is NOT a crime), which is no more criminal than YOU taking a deduction on your taxes for your mortgage interest.
Or working in one State while living in another (which I have done in the past, and my wife is doing now - quite easy to do when you live five miles from the State line).
The State of Washington could have closed this loophole loooooong ago by simply passing a law, "If you operate a business here, you must pay taxes on all your income." If Microsoft doesn't like it they can pack-up and move out. I doubt the state would miss the ~1000 job loss out of millions of jobs..... it's certainly less painful that losing 4 billion in taxes last year.
So, losing four billion in taxes is more painful than losing four billion in taxes PLUS income taxes on MS employees PLUS property taxes paid by MS and its employees PLUS income taxes actually paid by MS?
That only makes sense if Washington State pays MS property taxes, pays MS employees and their property taxes, etc....
Note, by the by, that Washington State has no legal standing to charge taxes on things that don't happen in Washington State....
Eh, I have yet to meet a firearm that gave me any more than the most trivial problems. Certainly left-handed firearms are nice, but in a practical sense both sorts work fine. Working the safety on a pistol quickly is probably the least convenient feature of wrong-handed hand guns.
My father is right-handed, but shoots leftie. And he postively hates bolt-action rifles for that reason - operating a bolt from the wrong side is painful, at best.
My apologies for using the "Committee for Public Safety" as a rude commentary about the French Revolution as a whole.
Nonetheless, Paris was the center of French government then (both before and after the Committee for Public Safety), and the metric system came about as an act of the French government during the Revolution.
If the Metric system had come out of the UK, it would have used London as its referent. If it had come out of Germany (if Germany had even been a nation then), they'd have used Berlin....
There are actually places in America where its illegal to NOT have a gun.
Please tell me where this is. I think I'd like to live there. I've heard Alabama, but I've not found corroborating evidence to make that more than speculation.
Kennesaw, Georgia.
In response to Morton Grove (IL) handgun ban, they passed a law requiring every household to own and maintain a firearm and suitable ammo for same.
I'm not aware that they ever made any real effort to enforce that aw...
BLOCKQUOTE>
There are actually places there where you can LEGALLY walk around with a concealed firearm.
Yes, in quite a few states. But you must first pass a rigorous test
Generally true, but slightly misleading. There are places where a license is required to carry concealed, but open carry is quite legal. New Hampshire is one example.
In addition, so far as I know, New Hampshire doesn't require any sort of testing to get a concealed carry permit - just pay the fee and you're good.
The only way leveling the playing field in this would be to 1) prohibit political commercials and 2) oblige TV stations to set aside a certain time for political broadcasts, that is then shared equally between the various parties/candidates that participate in an election. This way every single candidate has their say 15 minutes of TV time, and all have the same amount of time to spread their views.
This won't level the playing field. The Incumbent always has the opportunity to try to bribe voters with a new law giving them a tax break of some sort. Which proposed new law, even if it never becomes an actual law, gets the Incumbent's name on the Evening News, and the morning talk shows, and the newspapers, and that sort of thing.
All of which is free publicity.
Eliminating political advertising altogether (which would pretty much require repeal of the First Amendment) would just make sure that the only political candidates you ever heard mentioned would be the incumbents....
The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability.
Umm, when a coporation sets up an office in a tax haven, then pays taxes accordingly, they also "meet their obligation under law".
Don't tax corporations, then every rich dick will stick all their income in a corporation which then pays them a token salary. The corporation the buys the investment mansion which no one ever wants to rent and tax deducts all running and management costs. The corporation buys the supercars and limos and tax deducts them, perhaps the locate the mansion on a few acres add one horse and those supercars and limos become farm vehicles.
So, how will they "tax deduct" something if they're not paying taxes?
The mega yacht also owned by the corporation is now a marketing tool and hence tax deductible. The private jet, well that's a part time 'er' full time air charter business that loses money and is again tax deductible.
Same question - how is something tax deductible if you don't owe taxes?
No one, but no one, with any sense would argue that any of those US planes was a better dogfighter. Hellcats, Wildcats and Corsairs (and don't forget Lightnings and Mustangs) almost never shot down Zeros in dogfights. They used tactics to avoid trying to turn with Zeros, because they knew they would die trying that. Most of the victories came after Japan's experienced pilot cadre had their heart cut out.
So, you're defining "dogfight" as a two-dimensional duel between two vehicles moving in three dimensions?
As opposed to, say, four vehicles operating in pairs, moving in all three dimensions?
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Note that the reason the Zero turned so well is that it had no armor, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue. And that it didn't actually take all that long to get a clue. When all is said and done, the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje with WW-one era paper bags, but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
The Zero and Yak-3 were arguably better dogfighter planes.
While the Yak-3 may be arguable, it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
Hell, once people figured out the Zero's gimmick, Wildcats (by no-one's definition a top of the line WW2 fighter) were shooting down zeroes at favourable ratios....
The FBI is a member of the US intelligence community. It IS an intelligence agency. You could learn this trivially quickly on wikipedia.
Nonetheless, the FBI is supposed to be about INTERNAL law enforcement, not foreign intelligence.
On the other hand, they're what we have for a national police force, so it's possible that their mandate allows this sort of thing, assuming cooperation by local law enforcement.
The value of the code is not in its precise wording, it is in the function it accomplishes. Protecting the first is useless, protecting the second would stall the whole software industry.
Copyright doesn't protect functionality. Copyright only protects expression.
The speed of light is known with a precision that goes quite beyond that.
Since the meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 second, the speed of light is known pretty much exactly, with the only fudge factor the exact length of a second.
Which is theoretically also known exactly, but the "approaching absolute zero" part of the definition of a second leaves a tiny amount of wiggle-room.
Amazing how many things are the "first step in establishing a permanent human presence in space".
You'd think by now we'd actually HAVE one.
Problem is that we keep on doing those "irst step in establishing a permanent human presence in space" things and never get around to the "second step...".
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly.
Alas, this doesn't prove your point. TFA describes it as requiring the military to figure out how much it would cost to maintain and/or perfect the hardware used in the research program.
It does NOT include any money allocated for the purpose....
Umm, no.
The "secret" part is just until the patent is actually issued. And you can't infringe a patent until it is issued.
So it will be impossible to infringe a "secret patent", since the patent won't be secret once issued, and you can't infringe upon it before that.
So? Not like a handful of employees and one office are particularly straining Nevada's infrastructure or anything.'
The IRS doesn't care about your State taxes, so why would they "call you out" about it?
Other "enforcement agencies", unless they're at the Federal level, don't have legal authority outside their own State (or local jurisdiction), so they can't "call you out" either.
IF "other enforcement agencies" happen to be Federal, they're like the IRS - they don't care, it's a State matter.
Note, by the way, that this article is NOT about Microsoft doing "tax evasion" (which is a crime), but about Microsoft doing "tax avoidance" (which is NOT a crime), which is no more criminal than YOU taking a deduction on your taxes for your mortgage interest.
Or working in one State while living in another (which I have done in the past, and my wife is doing now - quite easy to do when you live five miles from the State line).
So, losing four billion in taxes is more painful than losing four billion in taxes PLUS income taxes on MS employees PLUS property taxes paid by MS and its employees PLUS income taxes actually paid by MS?
That only makes sense if Washington State pays MS property taxes, pays MS employees and their property taxes, etc....
Note, by the by, that Washington State has no legal standing to charge taxes on things that don't happen in Washington State....
My father is right-handed, but shoots leftie. And he postively hates bolt-action rifles for that reason - operating a bolt from the wrong side is painful, at best.
Possibly.
But once upon a time, the unions were about bettering things for their members.
It's just possible that in Brazil, unions are still at that point.
Because otherwise the TV stations could pick and choose which candidates get airtime by selective rate adjustments.
My apologies for using the "Committee for Public Safety" as a rude commentary about the French Revolution as a whole.
Nonetheless, Paris was the center of French government then (both before and after the Committee for Public Safety), and the metric system came about as an act of the French government during the Revolution.
If the Metric system had come out of the UK, it would have used London as its referent. If it had come out of Germany (if Germany had even been a nation then), they'd have used Berlin....
1/10000000, not 1/10000.
As to why not Nantes, well, the Committee for Public Safety wasn't operating out of Nantes....
Kennesaw, Georgia.
In response to Morton Grove (IL) handgun ban, they passed a law requiring every household to own and maintain a firearm and suitable ammo for same.
I'm not aware that they ever made any real effort to enforce that aw...
BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, in quite a few states. But you must first pass a rigorous test
Generally true, but slightly misleading. There are places where a license is required to carry concealed, but open carry is quite legal. New Hampshire is one example.
In addition, so far as I know, New Hampshire doesn't require any sort of testing to get a concealed carry permit - just pay the fee and you're good.
This won't level the playing field. The Incumbent always has the opportunity to try to bribe voters with a new law giving them a tax break of some sort. Which proposed new law, even if it never becomes an actual law, gets the Incumbent's name on the Evening News, and the morning talk shows, and the newspapers, and that sort of thing.
All of which is free publicity.
Eliminating political advertising altogether (which would pretty much require repeal of the First Amendment) would just make sure that the only political candidates you ever heard mentioned would be the incumbents....
Umm, when a coporation sets up an office in a tax haven, then pays taxes accordingly, they also "meet their obligation under law".
So, how will they "tax deduct" something if they're not paying taxes?
Same question - how is something tax deductible if you don't owe taxes?
So, you're defining "dogfight" as a two-dimensional duel between two vehicles moving in three dimensions?
As opposed to, say, four vehicles operating in pairs, moving in all three dimensions?
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Note that the reason the Zero turned so well is that it had no armor, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue. And that it didn't actually take all that long to get a clue. When all is said and done, the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje with WW-one era paper bags, but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
While the Yak-3 may be arguable, it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
Hell, once people figured out the Zero's gimmick, Wildcats (by no-one's definition a top of the line WW2 fighter) were shooting down zeroes at favourable ratios....
Might be better to say "kudos to the publisher for following Baen's lead and not using DRM".
Do keep in mind that Baen's ebooks have NEVER had DRM.
Nonetheless, the FBI is supposed to be about INTERNAL law enforcement, not foreign intelligence.
On the other hand, they're what we have for a national police force, so it's possible that their mandate allows this sort of thing, assuming cooperation by local law enforcement.
Yes, and every ton of that wheat contains some amount of increasingly hard-to-find H2O.
Which is why it's important to get that induction catapult shutdown ASAP....
Which is irrelevant. If you want to protect functionality, try getting a patent.
Copyright doesn't protect functionality.
Since an API is all about functionality, it's pretty hard to see how it can be protected by copyright.
Note that "cravat" is a form of necktie.
Perhaps you meant "caveat"?
Copyright doesn't protect functionality. Copyright only protects expression.
Since the meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 second, the speed of light is known pretty much exactly, with the only fudge factor the exact length of a second.
Which is theoretically also known exactly, but the "approaching absolute zero" part of the definition of a second leaves a tiny amount of wiggle-room.
Maybe....
Problem is that we keep on doing those "irst step in establishing a permanent human presence in space" things and never get around to the "second step...".