This is just not true. Probably 3/4s of the software I run daily on my Mac is free. Much of what I paid for has free (but inferior) equivalents. Nearly every open source app works on Mac.
The whole "cockroaches will survive nuclear war" thing is a bit of a myth. Sure, they might survive the blasts, but they are a tropical species that can't survive below 50F, so they'll die off in most temperate climes with no humans to pay the heating bill.
I'm not so sure of that. We took our kid out of one daycare center because they increasingly relied on the TV as a pacification device. TV had gone from "special treat on Friday" to "2-3 hours a day."
Nearly everything you've ever done on the site is recorded into a database.
Unlike slashdot, which writes everything in code on paper and has mute gnomes who it in a locked vault.
Seriously, I expect this kind of idiocy from the AP, but I thought slashdot editors were supposed to be technical. Nearly every goddamn site stores user data in a database, and in nearly all these cases there are employees with the master passwords that allow them to see every damn thing. (Except, if you're lucky, the password.)
You are confusing mandated tax collection with taxes. That's a bit lying saying your company pays your income tax for you because they are the ones who write a check to the government for your tax withholding.
Are you claiming that someone who gets a refund "pays no income tax" because they never write a check to the IRS?
You stated that if they couldn't prevent a change in tax law, that they didn't have representation.
Bullshit. Congress can revoke the original law at any time. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and you've had no coherent response other than some confused babble about how California could somehow move too quick for Congress.
First of all, this proposal doesn't propose to make any Washington residents pay any additional taxes. It would allow California to require Washington businesses to collect taxes *from California residents*.
Second of all, if this proposal, which would be voted by Congress, which contains Washington representation, were to pass, it could also be repealed by Congress, which contains Washington representation.
In summary, your claim of Washington residents facing "Taxation without Representation" doubly fails, because these *is* representation and there *is not* taxation of Washington residents.
(Finally, the idea that California could pass new taxes faster than Congress could react is highly amusing given that tax increases are harder to pass in California than any other state in the Union.)
But that is completely untrue. A person in WA would be able to ask their representative to put forth a bill in Congress to repeal the law, preventing the tax from taking place.
You seem unable to grasp that simple fact. You seem to think that if this law were past, Congress would be unable to repeal it.
You are the one claiming that a person in WA is represented in CA when taxed by CA and subject to CA law when they have no vote in CA. That's the act of sophistry.
No, I am claiming that a person is represented in Congress when congress allows CA taxes to apply. The person continues to be represented in Congress and can at any time ask their Congressional Representation to repeal the law allowing CA taxes to apply.
It would only be "Taxation Without Representation" would be if CA could somehow apply the tax in a way that Congress (including WA representation) could not prevent. Since CA can *only* apply these taxes through Congress, which much include WA representation, this is not the case.
You continue to try to defend "Congress to force taxation without representation", a statement which is oxymoronic. Congress *IS* the representation so it can hardly "force taxation without representation" as any act it takes with regards to taxation *IS INHERENTLY REPRESENTATIVE*.
Why? Because every time a person buys a MacBook instead of a Dell, Microsoft loses $40 in sales, and this is happening more and more often, primarily because Apple has been successful with getting people to go through the iPod->MacBook transition.
The law would be voted on by WA senators and representatives...and thus Washington is represented in the decision. Congress (including WA representatives) can vote to allow CA to apply this tax and also later vote to disallow this tax. Claiming Washington voters are not represented is pure sophistry.
A business does not vote, period. A "sole proprietorship" does not get a vote, only a citizen does. They are not a single entity as can be seen by the fact that one person could have two "sole proprietorships". Claiming the business votes is again pure sophistry.
Uh, no. A sole proprietorship does not get its own vote. It's owner, if a citizen, can.
Regardless, back to the original point:
The idea that the US Congress passing legislation that allows California to collect sales taxes from Amazon's customers is not "Taxation without representation" because everyone involved, including the customers, and most Amazon employees including Jeff Bezos, are able to vote for Senators and a Representative. Therefore, this act is inherently represented, and therefore "Taxation without representation" does not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just not true. Probably 3/4s of the software I run daily on my Mac is free. Much of what I paid for has free (but inferior) equivalents. Nearly every open source app works on Mac.
Really? I got a Mac because Cygwin sucks and so does Gnome.
Exactly. OSX is to me a machine with a Unix command-line that takes less of my time to maintain and has a more robust set of applications.
The whole "cockroaches will survive nuclear war" thing is a bit of a myth. Sure, they might survive the blasts, but they are a tropical species that can't survive below 50F, so they'll die off in most temperate climes with no humans to pay the heating bill.
Yes. There are many chemical reactions that are catalyzed by photons.
That's how people tan. That's how plants grow.
I'm not so sure of that. We took our kid out of one daycare center because they increasingly relied on the TV as a pacification device. TV had gone from "special treat on Friday" to "2-3 hours a day."
If you're doing all those things with the device, will the battery be charged when you get a call?
I suspect a more logical reason for dolphins attacking sharks is the penchant for sharks to try to eat things like dolphins.
The reason people fear snakes is much more likely due to the human race having evolved in an area with poisonous snakes.
Unlike slashdot, which writes everything in code on paper and has mute gnomes who it in a locked vault.
Seriously, I expect this kind of idiocy from the AP, but I thought slashdot editors were supposed to be technical. Nearly every goddamn site stores user data in a database, and in nearly all these cases there are employees with the master passwords that allow them to see every damn thing. (Except, if you're lucky, the password.)
You forgot one former partner.
You are confusing mandated tax collection with taxes. That's a bit lying saying your company pays your income tax for you because they are the ones who write a check to the government for your tax withholding.
Are you claiming that someone who gets a refund "pays no income tax" because they never write a check to the IRS?
You stated that if they couldn't prevent a change in tax law, that they didn't have representation.
Bullshit. Congress can revoke the original law at any time. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and you've had no coherent response other than some confused babble about how California could somehow move too quick for Congress.
First of all, this proposal doesn't propose to make any Washington residents pay any additional taxes. It would allow California to require Washington businesses to collect taxes *from California residents*.
Second of all, if this proposal, which would be voted by Congress, which contains Washington representation, were to pass, it could also be repealed by Congress, which contains Washington representation.
In summary, your claim of Washington residents facing "Taxation without Representation" doubly fails, because these *is* representation and there *is not* taxation of Washington residents.
(Finally, the idea that California could pass new taxes faster than Congress could react is highly amusing given that tax increases are harder to pass in California than any other state in the Union.)
I'll take that as an admission that you have no clue how tax laws actually get passed.
Have you actually read any tax laws? They generally are passed months before they actually take effect.
But that is completely untrue. A person in WA would be able to ask their representative to put forth a bill in Congress to repeal the law, preventing the tax from taking place.
You seem unable to grasp that simple fact. You seem to think that if this law were past, Congress would be unable to repeal it.
You are the one claiming that a person in WA is represented in CA when taxed by CA and subject to CA law when they have no vote in CA. That's the act of sophistry.
No, I am claiming that a person is represented in Congress when congress allows CA taxes to apply. The person continues to be represented in Congress and can at any time ask their Congressional Representation to repeal the law allowing CA taxes to apply.
It would only be "Taxation Without Representation" would be if CA could somehow apply the tax in a way that Congress (including WA representation) could not prevent. Since CA can *only* apply these taxes through Congress, which much include WA representation, this is not the case.
You continue to try to defend "Congress to force taxation without representation", a statement which is oxymoronic. Congress *IS* the representation so it can hardly "force taxation without representation" as any act it takes with regards to taxation *IS INHERENTLY REPRESENTATIVE*.
Why? Because every time a person buys a MacBook instead of a Dell, Microsoft loses $40 in sales, and this is happening more and more often, primarily because Apple has been successful with getting people to go through the iPod->MacBook transition.
I've seen 120 fps video running on a 60 fps TV and a 120 fps next to it and the difference was very noticeable.
The law would be voted on by WA senators and representatives...and thus Washington is represented in the decision. Congress (including WA representatives) can vote to allow CA to apply this tax and also later vote to disallow this tax. Claiming Washington voters are not represented is pure sophistry.
A business does not vote, period. A "sole proprietorship" does not get a vote, only a citizen does. They are not a single entity as can be seen by the fact that one person could have two "sole proprietorships". Claiming the business votes is again pure sophistry.
Uh, no. A sole proprietorship does not get its own vote. It's owner, if a citizen, can.
Regardless, back to the original point:
The idea that the US Congress passing legislation that allows California to collect sales taxes from Amazon's customers is not "Taxation without representation" because everyone involved, including the customers, and most Amazon employees including Jeff Bezos, are able to vote for Senators and a Representative. Therefore, this act is inherently represented, and therefore "Taxation without representation" does not apply.
A civilization that follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will never collapse? Tell that to the Roman Empire! (West or East.)
Businesses are voting citizens?
"Being under the tax laws" is not the same as "taxation". You are confusing businesses with citizens.
Because that takes time and effort and I would prefer to spend the time and effort elsewhere.