No, it doesn't work that way. If a company buys a 747 then they pay the VAT. If they upgrade it and resell it, the full VAT is passed along to the buyer. In the end, whomever ends up with the goods (the consumer), ends up paying 100% of the VAT tax.
(Buffett famously made the observation that he pays less tax on his luxury Malibu vacation home then most middle income people pay on their family homes
That is because of Proposition 13, which was a sledgehammer device used to crack a nut (people on fixed incomes seeing their property taxes skyrocket as property valuations skyrocketed). It doesn't have much relevance outside California.
Google has played the same tricks in the UK. Google claims that the sales are made in Ireland, while employing many people in the UK whose job titles includes sales. I expect there are Google employees in France and UK (and most other European countries) who get sales commissions for sales "made" in the Ireland.
How many of those prescriptions are not traversing state or international borders?
When the drugs were bought by a wholesaler or pharmacist from another state, there was interstate commerce. When I buy drugs from my local pharmacist, there is no interstate commerce -- only a transaction that affects interstate commerce. The SCOTUS has read "affects" into the commerce clause even though it is not present there.
And for the 0.0001% give me a break. These cars may be expensive and considered a luxury item, but it doesn't mean they cannot be afforded by middle to upper middle class
Walking round the offices where I work a couple of months ago, there were more Teslas in the parking area than BMWs.
This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS
You know that the SCOTUS has already ruled that wheat grown by a farmer for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds and that weed grown by an individual in his garden for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds, right? Also, think about the last time you went to a pharmacy to fill a prescription -- the laws governing what requires a prescription are federal laws.
The SCOTUS has gutted the interstate commerce clause, allowing it be applied to almost anything.
Just like no pink unicorn doesn't exist, it's simply provable by math and crypto science that no key exist that you could reveal (that the whole point of this class of algorithms).
Unfortunately many judges and jury members have the same level of belief in pink unicorns as they have in complex math. They will simply discard the testimony of a math expert.
This all sounds very very similar to the whole BitKeeper fiasco, where Andrew Tridgell watched the traffic between a real BitKeeper client and the server in order to determine the procotol used
Not really, according to this article, Tridg connected to the Bitkeeper server using telnet, then typed "help" and got most of the information required.
I heat with natural gas (if at all). I don't even know if burning wood is legal anymore in California...
I *think* (IANAL) that it is legal as long as it isn't a "spare the air" day and even on those days, it is still legal to burn wood if that is your sole means of heating.
Exactly. The Supreme Court has decided that weed that doesn't cross state lines can be regulated by the Federal government. Your opinions don't matter.
Yes, I agree that this does not agree with the text of the Constititution but it also follows prior decisions such as allowing the Feds to regulate wheat grown for personal use. Basically, the Supreme court has decided that anything that affects interstate commerce can be regulated, even if that commerce is illegal anyway. And yes, it's hard to imagine anything that doesn't affect interstate commerce.
I don't think that it is coincidence that, whenever someone I know gets their email hacked and used to send SPAM, they are using Yahoo mail.
There was an issue disclosed a few months ago which related to stealing Yahoo credentials -- I suspect there are others. It's either vunlerabilities at Yahoo or there is something about the type of person who uses Yahoo mail.
You tell me you want a house built in two days... Fine... but if you expect there to not be serious problems and unforeseen issues as a result of rushing through the planning phase and then constantly changing the mission premeters throughout development... then you're being unreasonable.
Newsflash.. customers are often unreasonable.
In your scenario, if the contractor signs a contract to build the house in two days, then the contractor is liable if the house is not ready in two days. As the contractor, you should not take on a contractual resposibility that you cannot deliver. That's just as true for building a house as it is for building a large website.
As the contractor, you should have the expertise to decide to refuse the deal if the terms are impossible, or take actions to eliminate the risk.
All of this sounds good in theory, but in practice there are some terrible design decisions being made. For example, I tried a build of Red Hat EL7, which has Gnome Classic.
The first thing I tried to do was to customise the panel. right-button clicking on the panel did nothing. Why? I have later learned that I have to click <alt>-right-button on the panel to have the same effect. But why? How should a user know that s/he needs to also hold down the alt button? What was wrong with a simple right-click, which has been used for decades to bring up a context menu? The right-click has not been re-assigned, it just became non-functional.
The changes make the desktop environment less discoverable and hence less usable. It's this type of change that puts people off.
The board fell behind on bugging folks on payments because the processing took a lot of time and our financial controller was buried in work. As I was saying elsewhere, it's a scaling problem.
No. It's a management problem when an organization takes on a role that it is not equipped to execute and is not part of the organization's primary mission. Furthermore, it is a management problem because the issue was allowed to fester for some time with little to no action (as the minutes show).
The requirement of 'no business class' for air travel isn't unique to Amazon.
In large companies this may be really "no purchased business class seats", except that the company will buy for senior execs the most expensive economy seats and then get free upgrades for them because of the volume of travel bought by the company.
Here, our treasurer has answered the question you were asking.
Actually, that email thread does not answer my central question of "what was the board doing?", since the treasurer alludes to the lack of a budget, and that there appears to have been no action about that issue.
Your responses here do not put you in a good light. First you try to deflect -- stating that I should read the FAQ first and after that, you will answer "any questions", then, when challenged, you run for cover behind "consistent message".
You claim to "have had discussions about it", but the minutes don't support this claim.
Sure. Let me ask my question in another form. From the FAQ:
However, as the program grew, the processes did not keep up.
So, why no discussions at the board meetings about the problems with processes required to "keep up" with the OPW?
The OPW is not part of the Gnome organization's primary mission, so why did the Gnome organization take the lead? Why did the Gnome organization take on the lead role in something that it was not prepared to execute?
She can't spend money without the board approving it.
Do you then feel personally responsible for allowing 25% (or more?) of the budget on activities that are not mentioned in the mission of the foundation and merit zero discussions in the board meetings? I did not read every meeting minutes, I just went back to late 2013, but any item that takes 25% of the budget merits frequent discussions.
Looking at a few of the board's meeting minutes, it looks like the board are asleep at the wheel. No discussion of the impending financial crisis in the last 6 or 7 meetings, just business as normal.
Hold the left alt key and right click on the panel to add elements. This is a GTK3 default that can be changed.
This is utterly stupid, broken design. How should anyone be expected to know this combination of keys? It's a GUI -- I should be able to discover how it works, not have to read the manual. The old way of doing things (right-mouse button) is universally understood to be a way to raise a context-sensitive menu. Why change? The right-mouse-button has not been put to any new use. In a nutshell, you have an example of the reason that many people despise Gnome3.
Is it really? I tried an installation of RHEL 7, which uses Gnome Classic. As far as I can tell, the only way this is the same as Gnome 2 is in screenshots. The first thing I tried with Gnome3 in RHEL 7 did not work: right click on the panel to add elements. I right clicked on the panel and nothing happened. FAIL!
Slashdot Mirror
You have no clue how VAT works.
That is because of Proposition 13, which was a sledgehammer device used to crack a nut (people on fixed incomes seeing their property taxes skyrocket as property valuations skyrocketed). It doesn't have much relevance outside California.
Google has played the same tricks in the UK. Google claims that the sales are made in Ireland, while employing many people in the UK whose job titles includes sales. I expect there are Google employees in France and UK (and most other European countries) who get sales commissions for sales "made" in the Ireland.
When the drugs were bought by a wholesaler or pharmacist from another state, there was interstate commerce. When I buy drugs from my local pharmacist, there is no interstate commerce -- only a transaction that affects interstate commerce. The SCOTUS has read "affects" into the commerce clause even though it is not present there.
Because of federal rules.
In Fremont, CA. In what used to be the NUMMI plant (which was jointly owned by GM and Toyota)
Walking round the offices where I work a couple of months ago, there were more Teslas in the parking area than BMWs.
You know that the SCOTUS has already ruled that wheat grown by a farmer for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds and that weed grown by an individual in his garden for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds, right? Also, think about the last time you went to a pharmacy to fill a prescription -- the laws governing what requires a prescription are federal laws.
The SCOTUS has gutted the interstate commerce clause, allowing it be applied to almost anything.
Unfortunately many judges and jury members have the same level of belief in pink unicorns as they have in complex math. They will simply discard the testimony of a math expert.
The police would have to investigate the call before there were any consequenses for a false 911 report. Why would they do that?
Not really, according to this article, Tridg connected to the Bitkeeper server using telnet, then typed "help" and got most of the information required.
I *think* (IANAL) that it is legal as long as it isn't a "spare the air" day and even on those days, it is still legal to burn wood if that is your sole means of heating.
Perhaps increasing wealth inequality means that people have less disposable income and choose to spend their money elsewhere than golf?
Exactly. The Supreme Court has decided that weed that doesn't cross state lines can be regulated by the Federal government. Your opinions don't matter.
Yes, I agree that this does not agree with the text of the Constititution but it also follows prior decisions such as allowing the Feds to regulate wheat grown for personal use. Basically, the Supreme court has decided that anything that affects interstate commerce can be regulated, even if that commerce is illegal anyway. And yes, it's hard to imagine anything that doesn't affect interstate commerce.
I don't think that it is coincidence that, whenever someone I know gets their email hacked and used to send SPAM, they are using Yahoo mail.
There was an issue disclosed a few months ago which related to stealing Yahoo credentials -- I suspect there are others. It's either vunlerabilities at Yahoo or there is something about the type of person who uses Yahoo mail.
Newsflash .. customers are often unreasonable.
In your scenario, if the contractor signs a contract to build the house in two days, then the contractor is liable if the house is not ready in two days. As the contractor, you should not take on a contractual resposibility that you cannot deliver. That's just as true for building a house as it is for building a large website.
As the contractor, you should have the expertise to decide to refuse the deal if the terms are impossible, or take actions to eliminate the risk.
The first thing I tried to do was to customise the panel. right-button clicking on the panel did nothing. Why? I have later learned that I have to click <alt>-right-button on the panel to have the same effect. But why? How should a user know that s/he needs to also hold down the alt button? What was wrong with a simple right-click, which has been used for decades to bring up a context menu? The right-click has not been re-assigned, it just became non-functional.
The changes make the desktop environment less discoverable and hence less usable. It's this type of change that puts people off.
No. It's a management problem when an organization takes on a role that it is not equipped to execute and is not part of the organization's primary mission. Furthermore, it is a management problem because the issue was allowed to fester for some time with little to no action (as the minutes show).
In large companies this may be really "no purchased business class seats", except that the company will buy for senior execs the most expensive economy seats and then get free upgrades for them because of the volume of travel bought by the company.
You claim to "have had discussions about it", but the minutes don't support this claim.
So, why no discussions at the board meetings about the problems with processes required to "keep up" with the OPW?
The OPW is not part of the Gnome organization's primary mission, so why did the Gnome organization take the lead? Why did the Gnome organization take on the lead role in something that it was not prepared to execute?
Do you then feel personally responsible for allowing 25% (or more?) of the budget on activities that are not mentioned in the mission of the foundation and merit zero discussions in the board meetings? I did not read every meeting minutes, I just went back to late 2013, but any item that takes 25% of the budget merits frequent discussions.
Looking at a few of the board's meeting minutes, it looks like the board are asleep at the wheel. No discussion of the impending financial crisis in the last 6 or 7 meetings, just business as normal.
This is utterly stupid, broken design. How should anyone be expected to know this combination of keys? It's a GUI -- I should be able to discover how it works, not have to read the manual. The old way of doing things (right-mouse button) is universally understood to be a way to raise a context-sensitive menu. Why change? The right-mouse-button has not been put to any new use. In a nutshell, you have an example of the reason that many people despise Gnome3.
Is it really? I tried an installation of RHEL 7, which uses Gnome Classic. As far as I can tell, the only way this is the same as Gnome 2 is in screenshots. The first thing I tried with Gnome3 in RHEL 7 did not work: right click on the panel to add elements. I right clicked on the panel and nothing happened. FAIL!