While this might not be the death of e-commerce, it would certainly result in a dramatic narrowing of the online marketplace.
How do you figure? Let's say all e-commerce is eventually taxed. Okay, so how does this affect e-commerce? B&M sales have been taxed since the beginning of time as far as anyone alive is concerned.
The allure of online sales, to me, is not the lack of taxes. That's just a nice by-product. The allure is not having to leave the house, 24/7 access, being able to shop without being pestered by salespeople, and being able to do thorough competitive shopping. All of those advantages remain when e-commerce is taxed.
IIRC, NH has no income tax. That doesn't mean that they don't raise revenue through other means (Property tax, sales tax, etc.). However, DE has no sales tax. The dollar menu at fast-food places actually makes sense there.
Sorry, but it's common legal theory in the USA that ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it. If you don't know what the item on the form is, look it up in the book! If that doesn't help, I'm sure they have a tax helpline, or website, etc.
Of course, if our tax system was less complicated we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.
It sounds like your problem is with Google. You can either try to refine your searches, as someone else pointed out. Or, *gasp*, try another search engine! You might be surprised.
States are effectively no longer able to wage war, at least not against the U.S.. Iraq proved that.
One data point does not make a proof. I'll even give you Afghanistan. Okay, two data points do not make a proof. Furthermore, while we removed Saddam from power, it's hard to see any "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq at this time.
Coal? Most industry co-gens are natural gas, at least in the Northeast. It's not economically feasible to build a new small-scale coal generator with the current regs. Also, the linked article is irrelevant.
Here in NJ, it's slightly different, IIRC. You do agree to take a breathalyzer test when you sign your license. However, if you refuse, you are not charged with DUI. You are charged with refusing to take the test, which carries penalties equal to or stiffer than DUI.
However this doesn't change the fact that you're basically signing away your 5th amendment rights.
The post above you claims.7 mpg better for open windows. Assuming a gas tank of 13 gal, that's ~9 miles. Considering that I can usually go at least 330-350 mi on that 13 gallons of gas, 9 miles doesn't sound that significant.
Did you actually see that difference in your energy bill, or did you create it with hand-waving?
The rating of a PSU is a maximum. Your system is going to use the same amount of power no matter what PSU you have in it. Your hard drive does not all of the sudden become more energy efficient because you swapped a 400w for a 250w. You've merely limited the capacity of your system.
Futhermore, by using an older power supply, you may actually be using more energy. However, I do not know the efficiency comparisons between old and new PSUs. The assumption would be that newer PSUs are more efficient, but this is not always true.
It is not uncommon to see plants and factories to have their own generators of electricity that are powered by gas.
And this is not at all uncommon in the US, either. However this is not due to poor infrastructure, but the fact that it is generally cheaper to burn your own gas to get electricity than it is to pay someone to burn the gas and deliver the electricity to you.
The Model T is a deathtrap on wheels, and has no features whatsoever. You like lights, power steering, windows, radio, a/c, emission controls, safety glass, energy absorbing frames, or not having to crank your car to start it?
Furthermore, the economy of a Model T is quoted as 20-25 mpg. We have many cars that do much better than 25 mpg. However, our government does not mandate the use of these vehicles and our short-sightedness and cheap, subsidized, fuel does not propel many people to buy these vehicles.
And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.
Incorrect. Power plants are more efficient at burning fuel than an ICE that has to go through a wide range of RPMs. Also, as new pollution control devices are invented, it is much easier to put them on hundreds of power plants rather than millions of cars.
Furthermore, we're already pretty close to the limit on available power in the USA. In the summer several places (notably California) have rolling brownouts. If electricity demand were to go up due to electric vehicle usage, we would likely see more nuclear plants. No one in their right mind is going to plunk down the expenditures to build a new power plant that runs on oil/gas. Of course, if the current party stays in power, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw federal monies being wasted on such ventures.
I mean, do you go around criticizing DVD-ROM drives because they cost more than CD-ROM drives and only read at 1X?
It's my understanding that DVD 1x != CD 1x. According to this article, DVD 1x is 1.385 MBps (note capital B). CD 1x is 150 kB/s, IIRC. So, to compare apples to apples, DVD drives are ~9x.
Well I think we've gotten too far from the original post: "I remember a recent NPR interview where a farmer in the desert Southwest had no choice but to hire illegal immigrants to pick the crops; Americans would not apply for the job."
The original situation didn't have anything to do with minimum wage. In fact, as you can see, the wage is not even referenced. My assumption was that legal workers would not take the job due to wage, which may not be correct. However, no where did I say that only illegals work for minimum wage, or anything of the sort.
My point is that "no one will apply for the job" is not an excuse for hiring illegal workers. If you can't get workers, change the conditions of employment, don't break the law. It just so happens that "change the conditions of employment" almost always means raising the pay.
To be fair, the confusion most likely resulted from the stupid system that we have where XXth century means years starting with XX-1. Yes, I realize this system makes logical and mathematical sense, but it really is counterintuitive.
I think Cryofan sufficiently ripped apart your post. I wouldn't have been quite as in your face about it, but my response would have been along the same general lines.
Furthermore, I believe you misrepresent my post..
Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
The reason the farmer is paying higher wages in this situation is because no one will work for the lower wage. Supply and demand works both ways.
If illegal laborers are not hired, the harvest does not get picked or prices go up. Aliens pick a large portion of crops, especially in the Southern U.S. That means that if all laws were enforced, the producers would have to significantly raise prices in order to pay higher wages to American workers, making their product less competitive on the global market.
Too fucking bad, imo. Yes, I realize the consequences of this. It's way past time for a serious shift in the way we view and use labor in this country. Our current system is slowly destroying us.
I remember a recent NPR interview where a farmer in the desert Southwest had no choice but to hire illegal immigrants to pick the crops; Americans would not apply for the job.
That's what we call an excuse, and it's total bullshit.
If legal workers won't apply for the jobs, that is a sign that he needs to raise the pay, not break the law. Supply and demand works both ways.
Holy fuck. Could you imagine if I stole something from a store and said "No one would offer to sell it to me at $0.01! I had no choice but to steal it!" Ridiculous.
You can try to spin your way out of it, but the fact of the matter is that your original statement was incorrect. It doesn't matter how well they peform, or why they are in the business. The bottom line is that part of MS' business is providing web services.
Slashdot Mirror
While this might not be the death of e-commerce, it would certainly result in a dramatic narrowing of the online marketplace.
How do you figure? Let's say all e-commerce is eventually taxed. Okay, so how does this affect e-commerce? B&M sales have been taxed since the beginning of time as far as anyone alive is concerned.
The allure of online sales, to me, is not the lack of taxes. That's just a nice by-product. The allure is not having to leave the house, 24/7 access, being able to shop without being pestered by salespeople, and being able to do thorough competitive shopping. All of those advantages remain when e-commerce is taxed.
IIRC, NH has no income tax. That doesn't mean that they don't raise revenue through other means (Property tax, sales tax, etc.). However, DE has no sales tax. The dollar menu at fast-food places actually makes sense there.
Sorry, but it's common legal theory in the USA that ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it. If you don't know what the item on the form is, look it up in the book! If that doesn't help, I'm sure they have a tax helpline, or website, etc.
Of course, if our tax system was less complicated we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.
It sounds like your problem is with Google. You can either try to refine your searches, as someone else pointed out. Or, *gasp*, try another search engine! You might be surprised.
States are effectively no longer able to wage war, at least not against the U.S.. Iraq proved that.
One data point does not make a proof. I'll even give you Afghanistan. Okay, two data points do not make a proof. Furthermore, while we removed Saddam from power, it's hard to see any "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq at this time.
Also, does the name China ring a bell?
Coal? Most industry co-gens are natural gas, at least in the Northeast. It's not economically feasible to build a new small-scale coal generator with the current regs. Also, the linked article is irrelevant.
Here in NJ, it's slightly different, IIRC. You do agree to take a breathalyzer test when you sign your license. However, if you refuse, you are not charged with DUI. You are charged with refusing to take the test, which carries penalties equal to or stiffer than DUI.
However this doesn't change the fact that you're basically signing away your 5th amendment rights.
Better than a normal television.
Yes, by a whopping 0.03 hz, for NTSC.
The post above you claims .7 mpg better for open windows. Assuming a gas tank of 13 gal, that's ~9 miles. Considering that I can usually go at least 330-350 mi on that 13 gallons of gas, 9 miles doesn't sound that significant.
Did you actually see that difference in your energy bill, or did you create it with hand-waving?
The rating of a PSU is a maximum. Your system is going to use the same amount of power no matter what PSU you have in it. Your hard drive does not all of the sudden become more energy efficient because you swapped a 400w for a 250w. You've merely limited the capacity of your system.
Futhermore, by using an older power supply, you may actually be using more energy. However, I do not know the efficiency comparisons between old and new PSUs. The assumption would be that newer PSUs are more efficient, but this is not always true.
It is not uncommon to see plants and factories to have their own generators of electricity that are powered by gas.
And this is not at all uncommon in the US, either. However this is not due to poor infrastructure, but the fact that it is generally cheaper to burn your own gas to get electricity than it is to pay someone to burn the gas and deliver the electricity to you.
The Model T is a deathtrap on wheels, and has no features whatsoever. You like lights, power steering, windows, radio, a/c, emission controls, safety glass, energy absorbing frames, or not having to crank your car to start it?
Furthermore, the economy of a Model T is quoted as 20-25 mpg. We have many cars that do much better than 25 mpg. However, our government does not mandate the use of these vehicles and our short-sightedness and cheap, subsidized, fuel does not propel many people to buy these vehicles.
Right.. but you can save a bunch of money getting airfare+hotel together on the travel sites now.. at least that was my experience earlier this year.
Who among us doesn't have files saved in an old version of, say, Word, which can no longer be read correctly in a newer version of Word?
Me.
And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.
Incorrect. Power plants are more efficient at burning fuel than an ICE that has to go through a wide range of RPMs. Also, as new pollution control devices are invented, it is much easier to put them on hundreds of power plants rather than millions of cars.
Furthermore, we're already pretty close to the limit on available power in the USA. In the summer several places (notably California) have rolling brownouts. If electricity demand were to go up due to electric vehicle usage, we would likely see more nuclear plants. No one in their right mind is going to plunk down the expenditures to build a new power plant that runs on oil/gas. Of course, if the current party stays in power, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw federal monies being wasted on such ventures.
Japan may have been negotiating a surrender, but it would not have been unconditional. The bit you say about the Russians, imo, is pertinent.
I mean, do you go around criticizing DVD-ROM drives because they cost more than CD-ROM drives and only read at 1X?
It's my understanding that DVD 1x != CD 1x. According to this article, DVD 1x is 1.385 MBps (note capital B). CD 1x is 150 kB/s, IIRC. So, to compare apples to apples, DVD drives are ~9x.
Do you happen to have a realistic alternative to four-color printers?
No, I didn't. Who gives a shit?
Well I think we've gotten too far from the original post: "I remember a recent NPR interview where a farmer in the desert Southwest had no choice but to hire illegal immigrants to pick the crops; Americans would not apply for the job."
The original situation didn't have anything to do with minimum wage. In fact, as you can see, the wage is not even referenced. My assumption was that legal workers would not take the job due to wage, which may not be correct. However, no where did I say that only illegals work for minimum wage, or anything of the sort.
My point is that "no one will apply for the job" is not an excuse for hiring illegal workers. If you can't get workers, change the conditions of employment, don't break the law. It just so happens that "change the conditions of employment" almost always means raising the pay.
To be fair, the confusion most likely resulted from the stupid system that we have where XXth century means years starting with XX-1. Yes, I realize this system makes logical and mathematical sense, but it really is counterintuitive.
I think Cryofan sufficiently ripped apart your post. I wouldn't have been quite as in your face about it, but my response would have been along the same general lines.
Furthermore, I believe you misrepresent my post..
Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
The reason the farmer is paying higher wages in this situation is because no one will work for the lower wage. Supply and demand works both ways.
If illegal laborers are not hired, the harvest does not get picked or prices go up. Aliens pick a large portion of crops, especially in the Southern U.S. That means that if all laws were enforced, the producers would have to significantly raise prices in order to pay higher wages to American workers, making their product less competitive on the global market.
Too fucking bad, imo. Yes, I realize the consequences of this. It's way past time for a serious shift in the way we view and use labor in this country. Our current system is slowly destroying us.
I remember a recent NPR interview where a farmer in the desert Southwest had no choice but to hire illegal immigrants to pick the crops; Americans would not apply for the job.
That's what we call an excuse, and it's total bullshit.
If legal workers won't apply for the jobs, that is a sign that he needs to raise the pay, not break the law. Supply and demand works both ways.
Holy fuck. Could you imagine if I stole something from a store and said "No one would offer to sell it to me at $0.01! I had no choice but to steal it!" Ridiculous.
You can try to spin your way out of it, but the fact of the matter is that your original statement was incorrect. It doesn't matter how well they peform, or why they are in the business. The bottom line is that part of MS' business is providing web services.