A 32 bit app can't possibly have access to a full 4GB of ram. Doing that prevents you from having any way to interface and pass data two and from the kernel. That 1GB of RAM at the top of the address space was where your kernel pretended to sit, so apps could talk back to the kernel and read data from the kernel.
Unless you remove the kernel interface, you can't remove the address ranges used by the kernel.
You can make them smaller, but there are limits, certainly can't go below page sizes.
There is no logical reason that an x86-64 procressor in 64 bit mode would perform faster than 32 bit mode unless you are memory constrained. Raw operations are not inherently faster in 64 bit mode than they are in 32 bit mode.
If you are not exceeding 32 bit memory limits, your 64 bit version SHOULD be a tiny little bit slower than the 32 bit version.
Let me guess, you ran it in 32 bit mode, then ran it again immediately after in 64 bit mode... and then ignored the disk cache completely?
PAE is more or less old school segmentation. You can't say 'it has a 3% slow down' because it has 0 slowdown if that particular page is already in memory, and if not... it has the same 'slowdown' as an other paging operation plus a fixed number of cycles. So if you're dealing with tiny amounts of 'more than 2/3gb' then the overhead is a lot higher than if you're mapping out 2GB on every window change. PAE is just another form of paging. It is slower, but you're making numbers up from nothingness.
The interger math performance of the processer has nothing to do with it being 64 bit. Most (All now?) x86-64 processors internally will process 2 32 bit numbers in the same span as a 64 bit number if properly optimized by sending the 32 bit values through together. 64 bit code using less than the OS max for 32 bit code is actually slower than 32 bit code due to the increased pointer sizes wasting the processors registers filling them with 0s.
You really have no idea how processors work. While nothing you said is illogical, it is still in fact wrong in every account. Under the hood, processors don't work anything like they do on the surface.
Other processors also do other weird things. I have an 8 bit CPU that can handle 32 bit numbers in a single clock cycle, exactly like it does 8 bit numbers... and the neat thing... it can do 2 16 bit numbers in a single clock cycle! Why? Because the processor as I see it from a software developers perspective isn't anything like the actual hardware doing the work. Processors have translation units in front of them to provide you with one look while allowing themselves to rewire the backend in all sorts of different ways.
Citation Needed (RMS not allowed, sorry, we want reality here)
Please show quantitative proof that just open sourcing something instantly provides you faster feedback without any other costs or shut the fuck up with that tired bullshit.
Parallelization is not why GPUs are fast, its a side effect of rendering pixels, nothing more.
GPUs are fast because they do an extremely limited number of things REALLY REALLY fast, and when you're doing graphics... well guess what, its all pretty much doing those few things the GPU does well over and over again, per pixel (or vertex). They are parallelized because those simply, super fast processors are also small from a chip perspective, so stuffing a ton of them on the chip so it can do many pixels in parallel works, again, because all those pixels get treated the same way with a very limited number of well known operations performed on them.
They are not replacing CPUs because something like a simple if statement doesn't pause one processor, it pauses them ALL, and then top it off with the GPU being absolutely horrible (speed wise) at dealing with an IF statement. In shaders, you can get by with an if on a uniform because it only has to be calculated once and a decent driver can optimize the if away early on be for sending it to the cell processors on the CPU. Do IFs on an attribute (say a vertex or texture coord) and watch your GPU crawl like a snail.
Parallelization in GPUs is a direct result of the fact that they perform the same task on massive arrays of data. Since the code works on individual cells in the array individually, there is no 'race' condition possibility in the code, so its ready to run concurrently. Adding a new shader cell effectively gives you more speed without any sort of programmer effort what so ever.
The reason these parallel cells can work together so fast is also because the silicon works in lock step. (thats why IFs or attributes kill performance). Basically each line of the shader program executes side by side on all the shader cells at once. This makes all sorts of neat silicon based performance tricks possible.
Where you get screwed however is those IFs (All branching instructions really) because if any one shader cell has to run a branch of code, they ALL run the code, and then just discard the results. So when you write branching code in a shader, you are almost certainly going to run every code path provided if you use the wrong data for your branch.
They do ONE thing well. Floating point ops. EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SUCK AT, including simple logic checks, like if statements are painfully mind numbingly slow on the GPU.
The rotors need a drive mechanism. This is dead weight when in level flight.
The turbine power plant would work in all phases of flight, this is trivial and already accomplished.
The rotors will need to be symmetrical, making them less efficient as wings and as rotors.
And? Most heli's already use symmetrical airfoils. Of course, the receding blade still needs to be rotated 180 degrees so its 100% efficient compared to rotary flight but its not a requirement.
The whole system is more complex than either a plane or a helicopter. Makes building and maintaining it more expensive.
Yes, but this has the potential to land at a hospital helipad, as well as go super sonic. We currently can not design helicopter rotors that are able to deal with sustained entry/exiting from supersonic speeds as it rotates. Remember, the forward moving blade has its rotational speed PLUS your airspeed moving it over it. If the rotor tip speed is 300mph, you can't go more than 400 or so without the rotor having only parts of it repeatedly enter and leave supersonic flight.
Going with that, at 400 forward speed, your right side of the rotor disk has a airspeed of roughly 700mph, where as your left side is dealing with about 100mph. Dealing with the dissymetry of lift alone is enough to ruin your day, throw in the whole 'a sonic boom above your head 30 times a second' tends to just make it impossible for us to build.
Stop the rotor from spinning and you've solved the biggest problem with high speed rotary aircraft.
This is about landing on your hospital roof then immediately leaving there and going supersonic to your destination, and again landing on a roof without any runway.
If I could certify it in X-Plane and make it fly, I'd hop in.
You don't actually think engineers go fly this aircraft with pilots who have no idea what its going to be like, do you?
Bell helicopters has pilots 'certified' for new aircraft before the aircraft has finished the production line. This isn't the 80s anymore man, we simulate before we do the real thing. Hell, even Space Ship One and Two pilots are certified on X-Plane before they go fly a brand new experimental orbital craft.
It wouldn't have any control surfaces, nor would it need any.
Just like in normal rotary flight, you simply change the pitch of the rotor blade. The entire wing is an aileron, not any small portion.
The entire layout change consists of... rotating the receeding rotor 180 degrees (if they even bother to do that) so that its shape is the most aerodynamic. You could just leave it and compensate for the additional drag and lower lift using other control surfaces if you wanted to reduce complexity and remove the ability to rotate a rotor blade 180 degrees on its hub.
From a control perspective, theres no reason to modify the rotor head if you don't do that, cyclic inputs will work exactly as expected in roll, yaw and pitch would need alternate controls not on the rotor as the rotor is no longer in a position to apply torque to pitch or yaw the craft.
And for reference, my R/C helicopter has a rotor head far more complex than anything these guys are working on unless you count the complexity of putting a radar dome on top of the rest of that mess as the military does. Rotor heads aren't complex really, just precise.
The control style of the aircraft wouldn't change either, though heli pilots tend to 'pilot' more than fixed wing pilots so it wound't be something that you could just step into and fly unless you were made aware of the transition phase issues.
The V-22's problems were media and congress. If you think the V-22 shouldn't be flying you have no idea how incredibly hard to control the stealth aircraft are. A v-22 pilot actually flies his aircraft, no F-22, F-35, F-117, or B2 bomber would make it very far past the end of a runway if it wasn't for the computer that ACTUALLY flies the aircraft. The pilot just points the thing in a direction and the computer makes it happen. The V-22 has no where near that sort of fly-by-wire system. The V-22 as it was tested required the pilot to actually be in control of the aircraft, not just pointing it in a direction and letting the computer do the work.
Spend 1/3rd as much on avionics for the Osprey as was spent on any one of the stealth fighters or bomber electronics and you'd never hear of another Osprey mishap. (well, you won't anyway since they aren't flying) It could have easily been made as flyable as it wasn't even completely devoid of static stability like all the Stealth aircraft are.
I'm not sure what you're going on about with the completely changing the layout (geometry is the word you're looking for btw) of the rotors in flight. You do realize that you can already do that in even the most basic of rotor heads, right? (Short of rotating one blade 180 degrees by itself), Its trivial to change any one blade without effecting the others. No one does that because theres no reason to, but the added 'complexity' isn't there.
Helicopters are not ridiculously complex machines. They are more complex than an fixed wing aircraft in some ways, others not so much.
If you want people to know you're watching them, you don't hide the camera or hide it in an intentionally obvious place, but not so obvious they realize you put it there for them to find.
If you don't want people to know you're watching them, you hide the camera where they can't find it.
People who know they are being watched behave differently, regardless of the reason they are being watched or who is doing it. Human nature just works that way.
Having read several of your posts, you have no right to tell anyone they are a nutjob or that they need to read the constitution until you look in the mirror and say it several times.
When you make ridiculous statements like yours, no one listens. Try to come off as less of a nut job and you'll get more attention. I mean, you're still a nut job so you're going to have to work at it, but if you're less obvious you'll do better with the trolling.
It's ridiculous and burdensome to create a system that requires yet another 3rd party private processing center to perform a common transaction. Visa and Mastercard or Paypal are entrenched on the financial side and costs merchants ~3% or so off their bottom line, but can be bypassed by using Money Orders or personal checks. Adding another 3% or so across the board to pay a new tax processing center is not a negligible cost.
Okay, so you're mixing credit card fees with taxes... if you don't like CC fees... don't use a CC, its really simple.
It does not 'require' a 3rd party unless you are incompetent. Quickbooks can handle this problem just fine and tax appropriately for the entire nation without you doing anything more than installing it. Thats right, out of the box, this problem was solved years ago. They can use a 3rd part provider if they want though. Just like people use outside accountants and payroll firms.
Right, because that's just what I want. Someone else who has all of my online purchase history.
So... you're worried about an online vender having all your purchase history online... from an online vender?
You'll give amazon that information, and your credit card company that information... but holy fuck some other organization who is backend data processing for them... oh my god no...
WTF is wrong with you? This is no different than any other store already.
Plus, it's not that simple. 99% of all retailers calculate total price as base plus tax. Almost all online shopping software supports doing state taxes, but retailers are going to want to charge you the tax at checkout time. This means you feed an XML file into your software, then write a different check to each government. You could have an organization write the individual checks, but you're still billing the customers at checkout time.
Its done with computers. Its automated. No one is writing a check, their sending what is essentially an email (no, its not technically, but it is a message of sorts, nothing more) .
You are already billed at checkout for taxes EVERYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA so this is really irrelevant in every possible way. Its no different than any other store.
I have a few problems with the bill. First, this has the potential to turn into a privacy nightmare. To insure compliance, businesses will probably be forced to give names and dollar amounts straight to the government. Second, this heaps a significant amount of work on businesses. Not so much for ones employing thousands of people, but the cap is set so low it's easy for a three or four man company to trigger it.
Explain exactly how this is different than what we already have from a privacy perspect. Your CC is already the only thing they need to look at. You're purchases aren't private already, this isn't going to change anything.
Businesses are not required to 'give names and amounts' to the government for sales tax currently, why would this be any different? It wouldn't, and its not.
Heaps work on businesses? Look, if you're taking orders over the Internet and you use shopping cart software that is so fucking shitty that it can't keep up with the laws of the country you're in, you don't really deserve to be in business, you certainly are not qualified to be running an online business. Quickbooks will handle the issue so you've got no excuse, try again. Oh, and quickbooks has been capable of handling this issue for years, so its not like this is a new task to handle.
Business ALREADY do this if they have a physical presence in the state. It seems that people have no problem running businesses with these requirements. Walmart has been doing it for years, as has my little company. Its not even something I have to think about, 'it just works'.
Also, don't be surprised if this is used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses. Since most won't even have heard about this law, I doubt many will comply. Then, there's the fact that some countries have online retailers charge sales tax on all purchases. So, for those countries you would be taxed twice when you buy from them.
And it won't be used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses... since it doesn't actually apply to anyone outside the US.
You have essentially gotten every single statement you made, 100% wrong and backwards. Thats impressive.
Forget local laws for the moment as I don't know the specifics for California and they don't change because of this so just ignore them for the moment, until the end. You are in State A, say California 'The Store' is in State B, North Carolina. 'The Store' has no presence in California. (If it did, it would already collect tax on you and this discussion wouldn't apply) California and North Carolina don't even like each other for sake of argument.
If you are in State A, buying from a store in state B, but with no presense in state A, then state A MAY (at its discretion) require the store in State B to pay taxes back to state A. The taxes payed would be based on the BUYERS location and paid to that municipality (in principal, states may do it differently as its up to the state to even do it if they want to according to the bill). The BUYERS state, State A in this case, is where the taxes are meant to be. The Store just doesn't want to have to do the work or have the price difference.
You are ALREADY responsible for said taxes.
The difference is that currently, a State A can not require company in State B to pay taxes for the sale to you. This bill is an attempt to fix that loophole, so state A can then enforce its sales tax requirements on the seller rather than expecting you to actually report the out of state tax on your forms at the end of the year.
In both cases you already own the tax to your local state, the difference is that the store can be required to collect it rather than expecting you to tell the state about it at the end of the year.
If there is no tax in State A then state A isn't going to tax you. If there is a tax in state B, they might, but that would have no relation to this bill at all. State B could already choose to tax your purchase via the retailer that is In its state already under State B's control.
Basically, the idea is to prevent Amazon from setting up shop in Billings Montana, and selling shit and never collecting any tax across the entire nation... to the point that states have noticed the drop in income.
All the bill does is change who is responsible for actually writing a check to YOUR (State A) states IRS office.
Everyone does that. But its obnoxious and no one reports it... and its rather stupid to expect individuals to manage all the accounting rather than the business who... has to do accounting as a fact of doing business and the tax amount is a single fucking database query with data provided ready to use for EVERY tax jurisdiction in existence for free.
Fucking quickbooks deals with sales tax for the entire nation, businesses can do the work with the rest of their accounting responsibilities. Far more efficient.
And its a fuckton easier to get Walmart to pay the taxes on all their customers than to get all their customers to pay walmart.
By your logic, why does any store collect sales tax? Everyone can just pay it on their tax forms right? How many years have YOU filled in that box on your tax form? And if you say anything other than 0, no one is going to believe you.
A non-walmart retailer will have high prices and pay the same minimum wage.
Who pays $415k for a $60k house? People pay $60k for a house they value at $60k, and $415k for a house they value at $415k.
Almost everyone who buys a 400k+ house. There are really few houses in America that justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in price. In fact, in my experience, the more expensive the house, the shittier the quality actually turns out to be once you break a certain point.
A 60k house in my neighborhood would be a million dollar mansion NYC. Doesn't mean its actually worth million, but people would be happy to pay it. Houses cost what you can con someone into paying, they are in no way valued at actual worth or construction cost and haven't been in at least 40 years in any city I've seen. Rural is probably a lot closer to reality but I've been stuck in cities too much recently to assume thats the same as it always has been.
My house now costs under 200k, it is about twice as larger as a house I can buy in florida for 35k, and again, that house from florida, if in NYC would go for a half a mil EASY. On paper the house is close to the same size as the 35k counts spaces that I consider 'unlivable' but in reality its got about half the living space.
None of those prices are in any way fixed to the cost of building the house, as I assure you, that 35k house did not cost 35k to build, nor did mine, and nor does any of the ridiculously priced crap you find in overpopulated cities (the over population is WHY the prices are so skewed)
Slashdot Mirror
A 32 bit app can't possibly have access to a full 4GB of ram. Doing that prevents you from having any way to interface and pass data two and from the kernel. That 1GB of RAM at the top of the address space was where your kernel pretended to sit, so apps could talk back to the kernel and read data from the kernel.
Unless you remove the kernel interface, you can't remove the address ranges used by the kernel.
You can make them smaller, but there are limits, certainly can't go below page sizes.
Its not cheap you jackass, you're just passing the bill of to someone else.
On top of that, its incredibly shitty for the environment.
Really? PAE is bad? Have you just learned to completely ignore segmentation unless its named PAE?
Segmentation on x86 is utter tripe as well, but PAE is nothing but a spec on top of the other mess of bullshit known as segmentation.
Then you did something wrong.
There is no logical reason that an x86-64 procressor in 64 bit mode would perform faster than 32 bit mode unless you are memory constrained. Raw operations are not inherently faster in 64 bit mode than they are in 32 bit mode.
If you are not exceeding 32 bit memory limits, your 64 bit version SHOULD be a tiny little bit slower than the 32 bit version.
Let me guess, you ran it in 32 bit mode, then ran it again immediately after in 64 bit mode ... and then ignored the disk cache completely?
PAE is more or less old school segmentation. You can't say 'it has a 3% slow down' because it has 0 slowdown if that particular page is already in memory, and if not ... it has the same 'slowdown' as an other paging operation plus a fixed number of cycles. So if you're dealing with tiny amounts of 'more than 2/3gb' then the overhead is a lot higher than if you're mapping out 2GB on every window change. PAE is just another form of paging. It is slower, but you're making numbers up from nothingness.
The interger math performance of the processer has nothing to do with it being 64 bit. Most (All now?) x86-64 processors internally will process 2 32 bit numbers in the same span as a 64 bit number if properly optimized by sending the 32 bit values through together. 64 bit code using less than the OS max for 32 bit code is actually slower than 32 bit code due to the increased pointer sizes wasting the processors registers filling them with 0s.
You really have no idea how processors work. While nothing you said is illogical, it is still in fact wrong in every account. Under the hood, processors don't work anything like they do on the surface.
Other processors also do other weird things. I have an 8 bit CPU that can handle 32 bit numbers in a single clock cycle, exactly like it does 8 bit numbers ... and the neat thing ... it can do 2 16 bit numbers in a single clock cycle! Why? Because the processor as I see it from a software developers perspective isn't anything like the actual hardware doing the work. Processors have translation units in front of them to provide you with one look while allowing themselves to rewire the backend in all sorts of different ways.
The owner is the submitter. He knew what he was getting into, or should have.
Citation Needed (RMS not allowed, sorry, we want reality here)
Please show quantitative proof that just open sourcing something instantly provides you faster feedback without any other costs or shut the fuck up with that tired bullshit.
Parallelization is not why GPUs are fast, its a side effect of rendering pixels, nothing more.
GPUs are fast because they do an extremely limited number of things REALLY REALLY fast, and when you're doing graphics ... well guess what, its all pretty much doing those few things the GPU does well over and over again, per pixel (or vertex). They are parallelized because those simply, super fast processors are also small from a chip perspective, so stuffing a ton of them on the chip so it can do many pixels in parallel works, again, because all those pixels get treated the same way with a very limited number of well known operations performed on them.
They are not replacing CPUs because something like a simple if statement doesn't pause one processor, it pauses them ALL, and then top it off with the GPU being absolutely horrible (speed wise) at dealing with an IF statement. In shaders, you can get by with an if on a uniform because it only has to be calculated once and a decent driver can optimize the if away early on be for sending it to the cell processors on the CPU. Do IFs on an attribute (say a vertex or texture coord) and watch your GPU crawl like a snail.
Parallelization in GPUs is a direct result of the fact that they perform the same task on massive arrays of data. Since the code works on individual cells in the array individually, there is no 'race' condition possibility in the code, so its ready to run concurrently. Adding a new shader cell effectively gives you more speed without any sort of programmer effort what so ever.
The reason these parallel cells can work together so fast is also because the silicon works in lock step. (thats why IFs or attributes kill performance). Basically each line of the shader program executes side by side on all the shader cells at once. This makes all sorts of neat silicon based performance tricks possible.
Where you get screwed however is those IFs (All branching instructions really) because if any one shader cell has to run a branch of code, they ALL run the code, and then just discard the results. So when you write branching code in a shader, you are almost certainly going to run every code path provided if you use the wrong data for your branch.
They do ONE thing well. Floating point ops. EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SUCK AT, including simple logic checks, like if statements are painfully mind numbingly slow on the GPU.
You must be British. No one outside of Britain thinks the Harrier is a success.
The rotors need a drive mechanism. This is dead weight when in level flight.
The turbine power plant would work in all phases of flight, this is trivial and already accomplished.
The rotors will need to be symmetrical, making them less efficient as wings and as rotors.
And? Most heli's already use symmetrical airfoils. Of course, the receding blade still needs to be rotated 180 degrees so its 100% efficient compared to rotary flight but its not a requirement.
The whole system is more complex than either a plane or a helicopter. Makes building and maintaining it more expensive.
Yes, but this has the potential to land at a hospital helipad, as well as go super sonic. We currently can not design helicopter rotors that are able to deal with sustained entry/exiting from supersonic speeds as it rotates. Remember, the forward moving blade has its rotational speed PLUS your airspeed moving it over it. If the rotor tip speed is 300mph, you can't go more than 400 or so without the rotor having only parts of it repeatedly enter and leave supersonic flight.
Going with that, at 400 forward speed, your right side of the rotor disk has a airspeed of roughly 700mph, where as your left side is dealing with about 100mph. Dealing with the dissymetry of lift alone is enough to ruin your day, throw in the whole 'a sonic boom above your head 30 times a second' tends to just make it impossible for us to build.
Stop the rotor from spinning and you've solved the biggest problem with high speed rotary aircraft.
This is about landing on your hospital roof then immediately leaving there and going supersonic to your destination, and again landing on a roof without any runway.
Efficiency is a secondary concern here.
If I could certify it in X-Plane and make it fly, I'd hop in.
You don't actually think engineers go fly this aircraft with pilots who have no idea what its going to be like, do you?
Bell helicopters has pilots 'certified' for new aircraft before the aircraft has finished the production line. This isn't the 80s anymore man, we simulate before we do the real thing. Hell, even Space Ship One and Two pilots are certified on X-Plane before they go fly a brand new experimental orbital craft.
It wouldn't have any control surfaces, nor would it need any.
Just like in normal rotary flight, you simply change the pitch of the rotor blade. The entire wing is an aileron, not any small portion.
The entire layout change consists of ... rotating the receeding rotor 180 degrees (if they even bother to do that) so that its shape is the most aerodynamic. You could just leave it and compensate for the additional drag and lower lift using other control surfaces if you wanted to reduce complexity and remove the ability to rotate a rotor blade 180 degrees on its hub.
From a control perspective, theres no reason to modify the rotor head if you don't do that, cyclic inputs will work exactly as expected in roll, yaw and pitch would need alternate controls not on the rotor as the rotor is no longer in a position to apply torque to pitch or yaw the craft.
And for reference, my R/C helicopter has a rotor head far more complex than anything these guys are working on unless you count the complexity of putting a radar dome on top of the rest of that mess as the military does. Rotor heads aren't complex really, just precise.
The control style of the aircraft wouldn't change either, though heli pilots tend to 'pilot' more than fixed wing pilots so it wound't be something that you could just step into and fly unless you were made aware of the transition phase issues.
The V-22's problems were media and congress. If you think the V-22 shouldn't be flying you have no idea how incredibly hard to control the stealth aircraft are. A v-22 pilot actually flies his aircraft, no F-22, F-35, F-117, or B2 bomber would make it very far past the end of a runway if it wasn't for the computer that ACTUALLY flies the aircraft. The pilot just points the thing in a direction and the computer makes it happen. The V-22 has no where near that sort of fly-by-wire system. The V-22 as it was tested required the pilot to actually be in control of the aircraft, not just pointing it in a direction and letting the computer do the work.
Spend 1/3rd as much on avionics for the Osprey as was spent on any one of the stealth fighters or bomber electronics and you'd never hear of another Osprey mishap. (well, you won't anyway since they aren't flying) It could have easily been made as flyable as it wasn't even completely devoid of static stability like all the Stealth aircraft are.
I'm not sure what you're going on about with the completely changing the layout (geometry is the word you're looking for btw) of the rotors in flight. You do realize that you can already do that in even the most basic of rotor heads, right? (Short of rotating one blade 180 degrees by itself), Its trivial to change any one blade without effecting the others. No one does that because theres no reason to, but the added 'complexity' isn't there.
Helicopters are not ridiculously complex machines. They are more complex than an fixed wing aircraft in some ways, others not so much.
If you want people to know you're watching them, you don't hide the camera or hide it in an intentionally obvious place, but not so obvious they realize you put it there for them to find.
If you don't want people to know you're watching them, you hide the camera where they can't find it.
People who know they are being watched behave differently, regardless of the reason they are being watched or who is doing it. Human nature just works that way.
You are in the US as well, at least in every state I've lived in.
Its a shame it has to be a law to be a good citizen.
So ... you'd sit back and watch I guess, since you'd make it some sort of quad rather than a triple.
And poor people suffer the most.
50% tax on me might hurt, and I'd bitch, but I could still eat.
50% tax on my father and he'd be living under a bridge and still not able to survive.
Flat taxes are exactly the wrong way to go about it.
Having read several of your posts, you have no right to tell anyone they are a nutjob or that they need to read the constitution until you look in the mirror and say it several times.
Have you read the constitution? We've amended and ratified past that a long time ago, but way to pretend you have a clue.
When you make ridiculous statements like yours, no one listens. Try to come off as less of a nut job and you'll get more attention. I mean, you're still a nut job so you're going to have to work at it, but if you're less obvious you'll do better with the trolling.
It's ridiculous and burdensome to create a system that requires yet another 3rd party private processing center to perform a common transaction. Visa and Mastercard or Paypal are entrenched on the financial side and costs merchants ~3% or so off their bottom line, but can be bypassed by using Money Orders or personal checks. Adding another 3% or so across the board to pay a new tax processing center is not a negligible cost.
Okay, so you're mixing credit card fees with taxes ... if you don't like CC fees ... don't use a CC, its really simple.
It does not 'require' a 3rd party unless you are incompetent. Quickbooks can handle this problem just fine and tax appropriately for the entire nation without you doing anything more than installing it. Thats right, out of the box, this problem was solved years ago. They can use a 3rd part provider if they want though. Just like people use outside accountants and payroll firms.
Right, because that's just what I want. Someone else who has all of my online purchase history.
So ... you're worried about an online vender having all your purchase history online ... from an online vender?
You'll give amazon that information, and your credit card company that information ... but holy fuck some other organization who is backend data processing for them ... oh my god no ...
WTF is wrong with you? This is no different than any other store already.
Plus, it's not that simple. 99% of all retailers calculate total price as base plus tax. Almost all online shopping software supports doing state taxes, but retailers are going to want to charge you the tax at checkout time. This means you feed an XML file into your software, then write a different check to each government. You could have an organization write the individual checks, but you're still billing the customers at checkout time.
Its done with computers. Its automated. No one is writing a check, their sending what is essentially an email (no, its not technically, but it is a message of sorts, nothing more) .
You are already billed at checkout for taxes EVERYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA so this is really irrelevant in every possible way. Its no different than any other store.
I have a few problems with the bill. First, this has the potential to turn into a privacy nightmare. To insure compliance, businesses will probably be forced to give names and dollar amounts straight to the government. Second, this heaps a significant amount of work on businesses. Not so much for ones employing thousands of people, but the cap is set so low it's easy for a three or four man company to trigger it.
Explain exactly how this is different than what we already have from a privacy perspect. Your CC is already the only thing they need to look at. You're purchases aren't private already, this isn't going to change anything.
Businesses are not required to 'give names and amounts' to the government for sales tax currently, why would this be any different? It wouldn't, and its not.
Heaps work on businesses? Look, if you're taking orders over the Internet and you use shopping cart software that is so fucking shitty that it can't keep up with the laws of the country you're in, you don't really deserve to be in business, you certainly are not qualified to be running an online business. Quickbooks will handle the issue so you've got no excuse, try again. Oh, and quickbooks has been capable of handling this issue for years, so its not like this is a new task to handle.
Business ALREADY do this if they have a physical presence in the state. It seems that people have no problem running businesses with these requirements. Walmart has been doing it for years, as has my little company. Its not even something I have to think about, 'it just works'.
Also, don't be surprised if this is used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses. Since most won't even have heard about this law, I doubt many will comply. Then, there's the fact that some countries have online retailers charge sales tax on all purchases. So, for those countries you would be taxed twice when you buy from them.
And it won't be used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses ... since it doesn't actually apply to anyone outside the US.
You have essentially gotten every single statement you made, 100% wrong and backwards. Thats impressive.
Just for clarity:
Forget local laws for the moment as I don't know the specifics for California and they don't change because of this so just ignore them for the moment, until the end.
You are in State A, say California
'The Store' is in State B, North Carolina.
'The Store' has no presence in California. (If it did, it would already collect tax on you and this discussion wouldn't apply)
California and North Carolina don't even like each other for sake of argument.
If you are in State A, buying from a store in state B, but with no presense in state A, then state A MAY (at its discretion) require the store in State B to pay taxes back to state A. The taxes payed would be based on the BUYERS location and paid to that municipality (in principal, states may do it differently as its up to the state to even do it if they want to according to the bill). The BUYERS state, State A in this case, is where the taxes are meant to be. The Store just doesn't want to have to do the work or have the price difference.
You are ALREADY responsible for said taxes.
The difference is that currently, a State A can not require company in State B to pay taxes for the sale to you. This bill is an attempt to fix that loophole, so state A can then enforce its sales tax requirements on the seller rather than expecting you to actually report the out of state tax on your forms at the end of the year.
In both cases you already own the tax to your local state, the difference is that the store can be required to collect it rather than expecting you to tell the state about it at the end of the year.
If there is no tax in State A then state A isn't going to tax you. If there is a tax in state B, they might, but that would have no relation to this bill at all. State B could already choose to tax your purchase via the retailer that is In its state already under State B's control.
Basically, the idea is to prevent Amazon from setting up shop in Billings Montana, and selling shit and never collecting any tax across the entire nation ... to the point that states have noticed the drop in income.
All the bill does is change who is responsible for actually writing a check to YOUR (State A) states IRS office.
Everyone does that. But its obnoxious and no one reports it ... and its rather stupid to expect individuals to manage all the accounting rather than the business who ... has to do accounting as a fact of doing business and the tax amount is a single fucking database query with data provided ready to use for EVERY tax jurisdiction in existence for free.
Fucking quickbooks deals with sales tax for the entire nation, businesses can do the work with the rest of their accounting responsibilities. Far more efficient.
And its a fuckton easier to get Walmart to pay the taxes on all their customers than to get all their customers to pay walmart.
By your logic, why does any store collect sales tax? Everyone can just pay it on their tax forms right? How many years have YOU filled in that box on your tax form? And if you say anything other than 0, no one is going to believe you.
Yes.
A non-walmart retailer will have high prices and pay the same minimum wage.
Who pays $415k for a $60k house? People pay $60k for a house they value at $60k, and $415k for a house they value at $415k.
Almost everyone who buys a 400k+ house. There are really few houses in America that justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in price. In fact, in my experience, the more expensive the house, the shittier the quality actually turns out to be once you break a certain point.
A 60k house in my neighborhood would be a million dollar mansion NYC. Doesn't mean its actually worth million, but people would be happy to pay it. Houses cost what you can con someone into paying, they are in no way valued at actual worth or construction cost and haven't been in at least 40 years in any city I've seen. Rural is probably a lot closer to reality but I've been stuck in cities too much recently to assume thats the same as it always has been.
My house now costs under 200k, it is about twice as larger as a house I can buy in florida for 35k, and again, that house from florida, if in NYC would go for a half a mil EASY. On paper the house is close to the same size as the 35k counts spaces that I consider 'unlivable' but in reality its got about half the living space.
None of those prices are in any way fixed to the cost of building the house, as I assure you, that 35k house did not cost 35k to build, nor did mine, and nor does any of the ridiculously priced crap you find in overpopulated cities (the over population is WHY the prices are so skewed)