The visa stamp is a proof of your legal visitor status inside the country (typically including paying some sort of entry tax, and not carrying that proof is a crime punishable by a fine - which disappears into a pocket along with the constable's gun disappearing into his holster) ; outside the country, you don't need it.
The stamps are unnecessary these days. The information is stored in the computer system. A phone or radio call and 10 seconds can confirm legal status. And from my experiences with stamps, the answer will be more clear than a smeared stamp in a passport. They are not required. I've gone in/through plenty of places that don't stamp. Even countries that normally do, people coming in "unusual" places don't get stamped. Ports, and such.
But yes, I've had places where visas are required, and the visa is "invalid" unless properly stamped.
I've seen some of that wording, and it looked to me that you could have "basic", "basic" + ESPN, and "expanded basic" (includes all Disney), not that you have to give access to ESPN2 for everyone who orders ESPN, though the contract says you must pay for ESPN2 to show ESPN.
The wording you refer to was written with the intention you have in mind, but the detail wasn't there. There was a gentleman's agreement to not unbundle. If a carrier did, then the wording would change in 3 years, when the contract comes up for renewal.
That's the real fear of unbundling. That the moment you do, you'll never sign another content agreement again. It'd be a time bomb, not a contractual requirement for the contracts in place right now.
Your claim is, and was, preposterous and the analogy is wrong.
The key for the online service is more "secure" than the key for the safe deposit box. Yes, it fails on some tiny technical details, but it's an analogy. Both are sold as "secure". Both have shared access.
And unlike your lies, both require you to break in before you know what's secured.
Reading and attempting to correct the same broken logic over and over has become rather dull.
Because you are an idiot. Rather than listening, and trying to understand. You are trying to lecture and assert. You are wrong. You refuse to admit that's possible. Socrates' definition of justice is irrelevant to whether I'm left alone with hundreds of safe deposit boxes when I access mine. It's a "public" area, anyone can get to, if they are a customer. That you've never had one and don't know how they work doesn't make you an expert in asserting others are wrong without proof.
A job offer letter isn't a contract (if it were, I'd have to accept it).
I don't understand how being a contract would bind you to accepting it. Can you explain this? I think you are unclear on what a contract is, and I'd guess that you've dealt with people that use an accpeted offer as a contract.
Most of the time, when they have separate employment contracts, they don't care what you do with the offer letter. But if they don't have a separate employment contract, the offer letter is the employment contract, and they required it signed and returned before you can start. Since I've only had contracts, I've never returned a signed offer letter to the company extending it, but that was never an issue for starting on the agreed date.
But the corporation can defer and juggle taxes in a way a person can't. A person that makes $1 pays tax on $1. A corporation that makes $1 pays taxes on profit, not income, and can defer profits and losses so that the tax is paid later, not now.
I spoke with the head of a local municipal cable provider years ago--he said the equipment could already handle a-la-cart programming--they just legally weren't allowed.
I've read the agreements. The cable guy lied to you. They can't unbundle what they pay, but they can unbundle what you pay. They could pay $15 per sub for ESPN/Disney bundle, and charge $3 per channel for the content in it, so you get all the kids channels for $3 each, and none of the sports or family channels. They would be on the hook for $15, even if you only got one of the channels, but someone that ordered them all would more than make up for it.
The problem was that no municipal cable provider was willing to take the business risk of allowing a-la-carte, not that it was "illegal".
Corporate tax doesn't reduce capital gains tax or income tax, which is why you need to add the capital gains tax to the nominal corporate tax rate to arrive at the effective corporate tax rate.
So the corporation is never taxed, just the owners? That's silly. The corporation is a separate "person", and is taxed as such - sort of.
Fact is that the higher you make corporate taxes, the less people bother to invest in stuff and just consume.
False. People still invest. They just whine more when doing so.
So there's no similarity between a secure encrypted private storage online and a shared space in a bank?
The people that broke in and stole things didn't know what they were getting. The stolen things weren't in plain sight. They were secure, private, and unknown.
They broke into the safety deposit boxes of everyone in the bank, and only took the valuables. My dad's safety deposit box had nothing of value in it. If someone got it, they'd get certificates and deeds that were worthless without my father to sign them over.
That's what these people did. They didn't know they'd find Jennifer's nudes in there. The images stolen weren't public, or known until after they were stolen.
So your "in plain sight" distraction is a lie, crafted to blame the victim. Why do you want to blame the victim for everything?
But the corporation only pays the tax once. Every tax paid reduces another tax liability. Your argument is that you should be be abel to take as many red grapes for free if you buy any green grapes. "I've already paid for grapes, different grapes with different uses should be included in the first one."
That'd be absurd. Property taxes pay for schools and police. Income taxes pay for military defense of your stores, and infrastructure to sell your products nationally/internationally. Employment taxes pay for your employees retirement you aren't providing for.
Every tax is unique and distinct. Yes, the feds will tax your income and send it to your local police to buy guns, muddying up the waters. But that's a product of the politiicans cutting services nobody wants cut (like the police), and then voting up tax increases on income and blaming the other party for voting up increases, while funneling the money back to cut programs so they don't get so bad that people ask who cut them.
If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address. Who pays what tax where?
Which Amazon? The UK site? From everything I've ordered (or tried to) with them, "international shipping" means Mexico and Canada only. Even on items marked "international shipping available". I've never gotten Amazon to ship anything from the US to Australia. And I've tried with about 20-30 things. And can you even use a UK credit card on the US site? I can't use an Aussie card on the US site. It rejects it because it only accepts US addresses for "acccount" address or "billing" address.
Possibly, some of those rules are to get around some of the situations you give. The "sale" is in the USA, regardless of where you are, because your UK card won't work. So you are using a US card on a US site, shipped to a US address (who may well be a re-shipping service). So the sale, for Amazon, is clearly in the US, and nowhere else.
Probably someone who was certified under 8 and worked continuously in the field is as up or more up on V11 than a newly certified person.
I got my MCSE back in the '90s, before there was all the stink about test dumps and such. Oh, and back that long ago, it had no expiration. So yes, MCSE for life. They later changed it, but since I didn't sign new ToS, I don't have to put any caveots, reservations, or expiration on it. The current Oracle guys can do the same.
So using an encrypted service advertised as secure is the same as leaving something in plain sight?
Nope, smells like blaming the victim.
This obviously does not imply that the person with the stolen property stole their own property as you are attempting to do.
Huh? Where did I imply that some "stole their own property"?
What it does state is that "if the celebrities had not taken deliberate actions, no crime would have been possible".
Yes, if you hadn't bought a TV, nobody would have stolen it. If you hadn't bought that car, nobody would have stolen it. If you hadn't taken that picture, nobody would have stolen it.
Down with anyone claiming personal responsibility is a factor! If you leave a 100dollar bill on your porch and a thief steals it, you were never in any way responsible for leaving the 100 dollar bill on your porch.
So using an encrypted service advertised as secure is the same as leaving something in plain sight?
So, what's the negligence? Using an encrypted services advertised as "secure"? Taking a picture of yourself? What do you want to blame the victim for this time?
She stated she felt she did need them to continue her long-distance relationship. Since companionship is a "need" in all senses of the word, that qualifies for "need" in my book. Why not yours? Why are you blaming the victim?
And on a side note, I don't think the idea is correct that these celebrities did an effective risk/benefit analysis and found that the benefits outweighed the risk. First, because I'm dubious about the benefits of keeping nude photos of yourself. Second, and more importantly, because I don't think the risk is small.
So the ideal result would be to have Apple sued for fraud for being hacked. After all, they said it was secure, right? A lie to generate income is fraud. It wasn't secure. Apple didn't give adequate warnings.
Seriously, are there a lot of places where one would typically get naked around groups of other people? I can only think of 2 places where I strip down to my birthday suit, and both of them are in my own house.
Stop watching TV naked, stop eating dinner naked, and feel free to take off the bathing suit in the shower.
Slashdot Mirror
But lying for personal gain is "legal" in their dystopia. So pump and dump should be legal, as all fraud would be legal.
Lying to harm someone is an act (speech) that causes harm.
The visa stamp is a proof of your legal visitor status inside the country (typically including paying some sort of entry tax, and not carrying that proof is a crime punishable by a fine - which disappears into a pocket along with the constable's gun disappearing into his holster) ; outside the country, you don't need it.
The stamps are unnecessary these days. The information is stored in the computer system. A phone or radio call and 10 seconds can confirm legal status. And from my experiences with stamps, the answer will be more clear than a smeared stamp in a passport. They are not required. I've gone in/through plenty of places that don't stamp. Even countries that normally do, people coming in "unusual" places don't get stamped. Ports, and such.
But yes, I've had places where visas are required, and the visa is "invalid" unless properly stamped.
You are asserting encypted files on a restricted access server are "public access" files. I think you are trolling liar and a fool.
I've seen some of that wording, and it looked to me that you could have "basic", "basic" + ESPN, and "expanded basic" (includes all Disney), not that you have to give access to ESPN2 for everyone who orders ESPN, though the contract says you must pay for ESPN2 to show ESPN.
The wording you refer to was written with the intention you have in mind, but the detail wasn't there. There was a gentleman's agreement to not unbundle. If a carrier did, then the wording would change in 3 years, when the contract comes up for renewal.
That's the real fear of unbundling. That the moment you do, you'll never sign another content agreement again. It'd be a time bomb, not a contractual requirement for the contracts in place right now.
Your claim is, and was, preposterous and the analogy is wrong.
The key for the online service is more "secure" than the key for the safe deposit box. Yes, it fails on some tiny technical details, but it's an analogy. Both are sold as "secure". Both have shared access.
And unlike your lies, both require you to break in before you know what's secured.
Reading and attempting to correct the same broken logic over and over has become rather dull.
Because you are an idiot. Rather than listening, and trying to understand. You are trying to lecture and assert. You are wrong. You refuse to admit that's possible. Socrates' definition of justice is irrelevant to whether I'm left alone with hundreds of safe deposit boxes when I access mine. It's a "public" area, anyone can get to, if they are a customer. That you've never had one and don't know how they work doesn't make you an expert in asserting others are wrong without proof.
A job offer letter isn't a contract (if it were, I'd have to accept it).
I don't understand how being a contract would bind you to accepting it. Can you explain this? I think you are unclear on what a contract is, and I'd guess that you've dealt with people that use an accpeted offer as a contract.
Most of the time, when they have separate employment contracts, they don't care what you do with the offer letter. But if they don't have a separate employment contract, the offer letter is the employment contract, and they required it signed and returned before you can start. Since I've only had contracts, I've never returned a signed offer letter to the company extending it, but that was never an issue for starting on the agreed date.
But the corporation can defer and juggle taxes in a way a person can't. A person that makes $1 pays tax on $1. A corporation that makes $1 pays taxes on profit, not income, and can defer profits and losses so that the tax is paid later, not now.
I spoke with the head of a local municipal cable provider years ago--he said the equipment could already handle a-la-cart programming--they just legally weren't allowed.
I've read the agreements. The cable guy lied to you. They can't unbundle what they pay, but they can unbundle what you pay. They could pay $15 per sub for ESPN/Disney bundle, and charge $3 per channel for the content in it, so you get all the kids channels for $3 each, and none of the sports or family channels. They would be on the hook for $15, even if you only got one of the channels, but someone that ordered them all would more than make up for it.
The problem was that no municipal cable provider was willing to take the business risk of allowing a-la-carte, not that it was "illegal".
Corporate tax doesn't reduce capital gains tax or income tax, which is why you need to add the capital gains tax to the nominal corporate tax rate to arrive at the effective corporate tax rate.
So the corporation is never taxed, just the owners? That's silly. The corporation is a separate "person", and is taxed as such - sort of.
Fact is that the higher you make corporate taxes, the less people bother to invest in stuff and just consume.
False. People still invest. They just whine more when doing so.
So there's no similarity between a secure encrypted private storage online and a shared space in a bank?
The people that broke in and stole things didn't know what they were getting. The stolen things weren't in plain sight. They were secure, private, and unknown.
They broke into the safety deposit boxes of everyone in the bank, and only took the valuables. My dad's safety deposit box had nothing of value in it. If someone got it, they'd get certificates and deeds that were worthless without my father to sign them over.
That's what these people did. They didn't know they'd find Jennifer's nudes in there. The images stolen weren't public, or known until after they were stolen.
So your "in plain sight" distraction is a lie, crafted to blame the victim. Why do you want to blame the victim for everything?
Only if keeping something in a safety deposit box (a 3rd party storage service, sold as "secure"), is the same as keeping it on the sidewalk.
But countries like taxing multiple times,
But the corporation only pays the tax once. Every tax paid reduces another tax liability. Your argument is that you should be be abel to take as many red grapes for free if you buy any green grapes. "I've already paid for grapes, different grapes with different uses should be included in the first one."
That'd be absurd. Property taxes pay for schools and police. Income taxes pay for military defense of your stores, and infrastructure to sell your products nationally/internationally. Employment taxes pay for your employees retirement you aren't providing for.
Every tax is unique and distinct. Yes, the feds will tax your income and send it to your local police to buy guns, muddying up the waters. But that's a product of the politiicans cutting services nobody wants cut (like the police), and then voting up tax increases on income and blaming the other party for voting up increases, while funneling the money back to cut programs so they don't get so bad that people ask who cut them.
Taxes aren't evil. Politicians are.
If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address. Who pays what tax where?
Which Amazon? The UK site? From everything I've ordered (or tried to) with them, "international shipping" means Mexico and Canada only. Even on items marked "international shipping available". I've never gotten Amazon to ship anything from the US to Australia. And I've tried with about 20-30 things. And can you even use a UK credit card on the US site? I can't use an Aussie card on the US site. It rejects it because it only accepts US addresses for "acccount" address or "billing" address. Possibly, some of those rules are to get around some of the situations you give. The "sale" is in the USA, regardless of where you are, because your UK card won't work. So you are using a US card on a US site, shipped to a US address (who may well be a re-shipping service). So the sale, for Amazon, is clearly in the US, and nowhere else.
Probably someone who was certified under 8 and worked continuously in the field is as up or more up on V11 than a newly certified person.
I got my MCSE back in the '90s, before there was all the stink about test dumps and such. Oh, and back that long ago, it had no expiration. So yes, MCSE for life. They later changed it, but since I didn't sign new ToS, I don't have to put any caveots, reservations, or expiration on it. The current Oracle guys can do the same.
So using an encrypted service advertised as secure is the same as leaving something in plain sight?
Nope, smells like blaming the victim.
This obviously does not imply that the person with the stolen property stole their own property as you are attempting to do.
Huh? Where did I imply that some "stole their own property"?
What it does state is that "if the celebrities had not taken deliberate actions, no crime would have been possible".
Yes, if you hadn't bought a TV, nobody would have stolen it. If you hadn't bought that car, nobody would have stolen it. If you hadn't taken that picture, nobody would have stolen it.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Apparently everyone in the US who buys a Honda Acord is committing entrapment.
Yes, because no millionaire could afford a camera with a timer, or a tripod.
Eisenhower started it. It wasn't a warning, but a confession.
Based on movie plots, anyone who gets on a plane deserves to die in a crash.
Down with anyone claiming personal responsibility is a factor! If you leave a 100dollar bill on your porch and a thief steals it, you were never in any way responsible for leaving the 100 dollar bill on your porch.
So using an encrypted service advertised as secure is the same as leaving something in plain sight?
Nope, smells like blaming the victim.
It is blaming the victim to point at the dead pedestrian and say "he got what he deserved for crossing in front of a dangerous driver."
So, what's the negligence? Using an encrypted services advertised as "secure"? Taking a picture of yourself? What do you want to blame the victim for this time?
They don't need nude photos.
She stated she felt she did need them to continue her long-distance relationship. Since companionship is a "need" in all senses of the word, that qualifies for "need" in my book. Why not yours? Why are you blaming the victim?
And on a side note, I don't think the idea is correct that these celebrities did an effective risk/benefit analysis and found that the benefits outweighed the risk. First, because I'm dubious about the benefits of keeping nude photos of yourself. Second, and more importantly, because I don't think the risk is small.
So the ideal result would be to have Apple sued for fraud for being hacked. After all, they said it was secure, right? A lie to generate income is fraud. It wasn't secure. Apple didn't give adequate warnings.
Seriously, are there a lot of places where one would typically get naked around groups of other people? I can only think of 2 places where I strip down to my birthday suit, and both of them are in my own house.
Stop watching TV naked, stop eating dinner naked, and feel free to take off the bathing suit in the shower.