Considering rich people tend to buy more stuff and generally stick to more expensive items, they will pay a lot more in sales taxes than a middle class or poor person buying mostly essentials. Most states, cities or countries with a sales tax exempt food and other essentials from sales taxes or give a yearly credit for money spent on essentials. Other than putting a lot of tax professionals out of work, I don't see what is wrong with this plan. Getting the government out of peoples' financial lives is hardly a bad thing.
This is why I don't e-file. Despite being a card carrying geek, electronic is not always better. I won't be e-filing unless it provides me with an advantage over paper filing. Since I don't get a refund, the earlier refund wouldn't count for me. Since an electronic return would definitely be cheaper for the IRS to process (no need for a data entry drone), they should give a discount to those who e-file. Then I might actually consider doing it.
SCO is a company full of lawyers, and look how much good it's doing them. If they're really caught with their pants down, they are going to pay. Especially if it can be show that they've had a reckless attitude towards security (those comments you heard were probably not the only ones like that). I'd say LexisNexis will be in for a tough lesson in the legal system and the court of public opinion. Every time something like this happens, more and more people write their congressman and demand new laws be passed, which will make life harder for data mining companies like this.
If you pay by credit card and the service is not delivered, dispute the charge. More likely than not, they'll make good on it at risk of losing their merchant account from repeat complaints.
I'd guess the only thing difficult about controlling a train is dealing with the extreme boredom from such a monotonous job. My uncle drives diesel locomotives and says this is a problem even on the big trains, which are now mostly computerized much like subways.
Hmm, maybe that could've been worked to your advantage. I say that if a company wants you to do nothing but work on their stuff, then they should pay you your standard billing rate for every waking hour. To be reasonable, you could subtract time for shaving, showering, shitting, eating, etc. I wonder if they would think that was such a good idea. But good job sticking up for yourself, instead of quite literally signing your life away. If more people did that, conditions like that would go away.
Those kids would of course become Darwin award recipients. Put some old-fashioned cow catchers on the front car, and the problem is solved. I wish the Chicago transit system would do that; it seems like every other week some train line is shut down because somebody jumped in front of a train. Maybe it should be a more organized process, like have a sign that says "suicides jump here".
Last check or severance check? They could easily make severance dependant on signing an agreement, but any attempt to deny you pay that you've already earned (even accrued vacation time in most places) would bring the company severe consequences. They would possibly have to pay you triple the amount of your last check if they refused to pay it in a timely manner. Please people, read at least a basic summary of employment law in your area, you never know when it will save your ass.
You had someone ask you to not work on any outside code for a CONTRACT position? If it were a very well paying fulltime position which was exactly what you wanted to do and with a company which offered great benefits, that would be one thing. But for some shitty contract job, I suspect the economy was really bad when these contracts came along, or perhaps this was in an area of the country where the demand for IT pros was never all that huge.
Actually this case was an example of the system working the way it's supposed to. Some company got a patent that seemed legitimate at first, they tried to enforce it in a blatantly abusive way, and the courts stopped them. I'll agree that corporations have too much power in certain situations, but this is not one of them.
Sure they can do this, if they want to get sued. Chicago tried this shit with war protestors and ended up paying settlements to a lot of them after they threatened false arrest suits.
Best Buy would have no reason whatsoever to call the police in a case like that. If they give you something free, you leave the store, and they later want you to pay, too bad for them. Merchants threatening to call the police in order to collect a debt is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, which may apply here. There's something else this guy could sue for. When will people realize, Best Buy will keep doing shit like this because people let them. They will continue to stuff money in Best Buy cash registers no matter how poorly they are treated. Yes, it is possible to avoid them, I haven't shopped there in 3 years and I've bought plenty of electronics in that time.
The US Postal Service is the only place where I've ever received a dollar coin for change. I don't think anybody else uses them. And yes, the postal clerks have to explain to about every other customer that they really did get a dollar in change, not a quarter.
7-10 days would be a reasonable amount of time to wait for a refund by check to arrive in the mail. 6-8 weeks is robbery, especially if the return policy says nothing about the waiting period, and even then it might not be legal.
Provided you actually honor rebates in a reasonable amount of time and without making the process too difficult for the customer, I don't see them as unethical. Annoying maybe, but not unethical. Some people simply aren't very careful with their money, and as a store owner that isn't your fault. You might stock your store with "loss leaders" that require someone to walk past more profitable items to get to, betting it will increase sales overall. This is not unethical, but once again you are betting on customers spending more money than they may have intended to.
Most stores are not this anal simply because it costs them sales. When you spend all that time checking cards and turning them down for frivolous reasons (signature worn away, give me a break, what the hell am I supposed to do?) it holds up lines and causes legitimate customers to go elsewhere. Most stores accept a certain amount of fraud and shoplifting as a cost of doing business. Those that refuse to accept any will likely lose more money in the form of lost sales.
That law is completely fucking useless. Of course they can't force you to give out your SSN at gunpoint. If they can still refuse to do business with you, what protection does this law give you that you can't give yourself. The government created the numbers, they can regulate the use of them all they want, but they don't have the guts to confront the many businesses that prefer to have the SSN be the national ID number.
I had been saying from the beginning that the American public would be too stupid for a system like this, and it looks like I was right. Hey I know, I'll rent a movie under the new no late fee program and return it 3 years later with no extra charge, wow what a store, those Blockbuster folks are so nice!
No. The state in which he is a resident will allow him to deduct the amount of taxes paid to other states. I have worked in one state and lived in another before, and that was how it was done. I don't think too many people would work in a different state than their home was in if it meant double taxation.
I agree with your idea in principle (I would never buy anything from X10), but if I followed it to a T there are a lot of things I could never buy again, mainly cars. There isn't a car company out there that doesn't bombard the air waves with annoying commercials. I do wonder what the true return on investment is for advertising. GM can't possibly be coming out ahead as a result of a truck ad during every single commercial break on every single channel at every hour of the day and night.
I could swear people PAY money for Tivo. So why the hell should it be an advertiser supported service? I guess they think that since people are used to paying to receive ads in the form of cable TV, they'll pay for this too. Oh well, they certainly have the freedom to destroy their own business if they want. I for one will not pay for a service that delivers ads just because it also has the ability to do something any basic VCR can do.
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
Liquor stores and clubs have been sold a bunch of snake oil in the form of "fake ID checkers". Anyone making a fake ID that has any clue what they're doing will make sure it is scannable and appears valid, and this would be easier than making the thing look legitimate with all the holigrams and stuff. Few bars check both appearance and scan it; most employees assume it's good if the machine says so. A staff with brains in their heads will always be more effective than some overpriced barcode/stripe reader. As for bars sharing information on customers to blacklist, I wouldn't count on it. Bars compete with each other, as opposed to helping out. New ones come and go all the time, so I can't imagine they will all ever be able to share information. If several places are owned by the same person, sure, but otherwise I doubt it.
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
Do you have some evidence that this data is being sold to insurance companies? I would think, at the very least, that fact would be required to be disclosed. In any case, that form is not binding in any way. Not like you're swearing under penalty of perjury. If your insurance company was trying to use this against you, claiming that you lied to get some free smokes would be a perfectly legitimate defense, since there would then be no evidence of you being a smoker. As for you lying to the tobacco company for a free gift, I can't think of any law that would violate. It was free, afterall.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering rich people tend to buy more stuff and generally stick to more expensive items, they will pay a lot more in sales taxes than a middle class or poor person buying mostly essentials. Most states, cities or countries with a sales tax exempt food and other essentials from sales taxes or give a yearly credit for money spent on essentials. Other than putting a lot of tax professionals out of work, I don't see what is wrong with this plan. Getting the government out of peoples' financial lives is hardly a bad thing.
This is why I don't e-file. Despite being a card carrying geek, electronic is not always better. I won't be e-filing unless it provides me with an advantage over paper filing. Since I don't get a refund, the earlier refund wouldn't count for me. Since an electronic return would definitely be cheaper for the IRS to process (no need for a data entry drone), they should give a discount to those who e-file. Then I might actually consider doing it.
SCO is a company full of lawyers, and look how much good it's doing them. If they're really caught with their pants down, they are going to pay. Especially if it can be show that they've had a reckless attitude towards security (those comments you heard were probably not the only ones like that). I'd say LexisNexis will be in for a tough lesson in the legal system and the court of public opinion. Every time something like this happens, more and more people write their congressman and demand new laws be passed, which will make life harder for data mining companies like this.
If you pay by credit card and the service is not delivered, dispute the charge. More likely than not, they'll make good on it at risk of losing their merchant account from repeat complaints.
I'd guess the only thing difficult about controlling a train is dealing with the extreme boredom from such a monotonous job. My uncle drives diesel locomotives and says this is a problem even on the big trains, which are now mostly computerized much like subways.
Hmm, maybe that could've been worked to your advantage. I say that if a company wants you to do nothing but work on their stuff, then they should pay you your standard billing rate for every waking hour. To be reasonable, you could subtract time for shaving, showering, shitting, eating, etc. I wonder if they would think that was such a good idea. But good job sticking up for yourself, instead of quite literally signing your life away. If more people did that, conditions like that would go away.
Those kids would of course become Darwin award recipients. Put some old-fashioned cow catchers on the front car, and the problem is solved. I wish the Chicago transit system would do that; it seems like every other week some train line is shut down because somebody jumped in front of a train. Maybe it should be a more organized process, like have a sign that says "suicides jump here".
Last check or severance check? They could easily make severance dependant on signing an agreement, but any attempt to deny you pay that you've already earned (even accrued vacation time in most places) would bring the company severe consequences. They would possibly have to pay you triple the amount of your last check if they refused to pay it in a timely manner. Please people, read at least a basic summary of employment law in your area, you never know when it will save your ass.
Wasn't there a Dilbert cartoon about something just like this, where the PHB was bringing in candidates to do a "sample" of his work?
You had someone ask you to not work on any outside code for a CONTRACT position? If it were a very well paying fulltime position which was exactly what you wanted to do and with a company which offered great benefits, that would be one thing. But for some shitty contract job, I suspect the economy was really bad when these contracts came along, or perhaps this was in an area of the country where the demand for IT pros was never all that huge.
Considering how male dominated the computer field is, I'd say they'd be mostly dudes. I'll take a pass on this job.
Actually this case was an example of the system working the way it's supposed to. Some company got a patent that seemed legitimate at first, they tried to enforce it in a blatantly abusive way, and the courts stopped them. I'll agree that corporations have too much power in certain situations, but this is not one of them.
Sure they can do this, if they want to get sued. Chicago tried this shit with war protestors and ended up paying settlements to a lot of them after they threatened false arrest suits.
Best Buy would have no reason whatsoever to call the police in a case like that. If they give you something free, you leave the store, and they later want you to pay, too bad for them. Merchants threatening to call the police in order to collect a debt is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, which may apply here. There's something else this guy could sue for. When will people realize, Best Buy will keep doing shit like this because people let them. They will continue to stuff money in Best Buy cash registers no matter how poorly they are treated. Yes, it is possible to avoid them, I haven't shopped there in 3 years and I've bought plenty of electronics in that time.
The US Postal Service is the only place where I've ever received a dollar coin for change. I don't think anybody else uses them. And yes, the postal clerks have to explain to about every other customer that they really did get a dollar in change, not a quarter.
7-10 days would be a reasonable amount of time to wait for a refund by check to arrive in the mail. 6-8 weeks is robbery, especially if the return policy says nothing about the waiting period, and even then it might not be legal.
Provided you actually honor rebates in a reasonable amount of time and without making the process too difficult for the customer, I don't see them as unethical. Annoying maybe, but not unethical. Some people simply aren't very careful with their money, and as a store owner that isn't your fault. You might stock your store with "loss leaders" that require someone to walk past more profitable items to get to, betting it will increase sales overall. This is not unethical, but once again you are betting on customers spending more money than they may have intended to.
Most stores are not this anal simply because it costs them sales. When you spend all that time checking cards and turning them down for frivolous reasons (signature worn away, give me a break, what the hell am I supposed to do?) it holds up lines and causes legitimate customers to go elsewhere. Most stores accept a certain amount of fraud and shoplifting as a cost of doing business. Those that refuse to accept any will likely lose more money in the form of lost sales.
That law is completely fucking useless. Of course they can't force you to give out your SSN at gunpoint. If they can still refuse to do business with you, what protection does this law give you that you can't give yourself. The government created the numbers, they can regulate the use of them all they want, but they don't have the guts to confront the many businesses that prefer to have the SSN be the national ID number.
I had been saying from the beginning that the American public would be too stupid for a system like this, and it looks like I was right. Hey I know, I'll rent a movie under the new no late fee program and return it 3 years later with no extra charge, wow what a store, those Blockbuster folks are so nice!
No. The state in which he is a resident will allow him to deduct the amount of taxes paid to other states. I have worked in one state and lived in another before, and that was how it was done. I don't think too many people would work in a different state than their home was in if it meant double taxation.
I agree with your idea in principle (I would never buy anything from X10), but if I followed it to a T there are a lot of things I could never buy again, mainly cars. There isn't a car company out there that doesn't bombard the air waves with annoying commercials. I do wonder what the true return on investment is for advertising. GM can't possibly be coming out ahead as a result of a truck ad during every single commercial break on every single channel at every hour of the day and night.
I could swear people PAY money for Tivo. So why the hell should it be an advertiser supported service? I guess they think that since people are used to paying to receive ads in the form of cable TV, they'll pay for this too. Oh well, they certainly have the freedom to destroy their own business if they want. I for one will not pay for a service that delivers ads just because it also has the ability to do something any basic VCR can do.
Liquor stores and clubs have been sold a bunch of snake oil in the form of "fake ID checkers". Anyone making a fake ID that has any clue what they're doing will make sure it is scannable and appears valid, and this would be easier than making the thing look legitimate with all the holigrams and stuff. Few bars check both appearance and scan it; most employees assume it's good if the machine says so. A staff with brains in their heads will always be more effective than some overpriced barcode/stripe reader. As for bars sharing information on customers to blacklist, I wouldn't count on it. Bars compete with each other, as opposed to helping out. New ones come and go all the time, so I can't imagine they will all ever be able to share information. If several places are owned by the same person, sure, but otherwise I doubt it.
Do you have some evidence that this data is being sold to insurance companies? I would think, at the very least, that fact would be required to be disclosed. In any case, that form is not binding in any way. Not like you're swearing under penalty of perjury. If your insurance company was trying to use this against you, claiming that you lied to get some free smokes would be a perfectly legitimate defense, since there would then be no evidence of you being a smoker. As for you lying to the tobacco company for a free gift, I can't think of any law that would violate. It was free, afterall.