Can't someone just create an app to make your phone send bogus location data? Then you can plot points in the middle of the ocean or some foreign city and have different locations for different apps.
For me, any app that needs to know where i am other than a map program just doesn't get installed or used. I'm likely not alone in that either.
They would probably block payment by credit cards or something, sue in a local court, then sue to recover the judgment in a U.S. court. Netflix would likely counter punch with a WIPO trade violation if they can convince anyone in the U.S. government to back them.
Silly rabbit.... all that will happen is the cost of entertainment in Europe will increase. You will get more advertising by default and subscription fees will increase. You might even get regular shows with crappy audio dubbing just to comply but they won't be quite the same.
What deliberate transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich? What law was passed that said you have to give the rich money or anything? What specific policy was it?
It sounds like you don't have a clue. You certainly don't when it comes to what you think I want. There is no finite supply of money so the wealthy getting more means nothing at all as long as the poorer get more too. You simply cannot separate the economy so it is profitable for the poor and not for the rich. Anything that helps the poorer will by default be advantageous to the rich also. Anything that restricts the rich will hurt the poorer too. This is why the phrase was correct. You do not care if the poor are poorer as long as the rich are not more rich.
I suspect your problem comes from expecting of government to do what you should be doing for yourself and looking for a boogeyman to blame when that is mismanaged. Yes, companies should pay taxes on the economic activity within a country. Yes they need to follow the laws. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. But chances are the fact that they are not already changed has something to do with you not understanding the economic sense of the existing laws or the ramifications of your favored changes.
It's probably not suitable for a cruise ship due to the way it heels when under power from the masts. It likely might be able to be somewhat useful if that problem can be addressed but you don't really want 60 year old ladies or little kids walking along a deck heeling a 20 degree or better angle.
I scanned through this (PDF warning) but didn't spend much time on it. It appears that in some instances, a gun smith is a dealer and in others they are not.
Nope, but you have to go through a separate legal process to obtain ownership of the gun rather than the transfer at time of the pawn.
This is just like taking your car to the repair shop. Once they tell you it is fixed, if you do not pick it up after a certain time, they can go through a legal process to transfer ownership and resell the car for the bill owed. Same with towing a vehicle in most places, it is still yours until you default and the legal process is started.
The gap between the rich and the poor? What the hell does that have to do with anything? There is not a finite supply of money and if one person gets more it means someone _will_have_to get less. This isn't marbles on second grade recess we are playing here. Wealth is created and the more wealth in society, the more money is printed or in the case of electronic funds, it is just represented. There is no problem with the rich getting richer that taxing them will solve.
There's no reason whatsoever for Apple and their ilk not to pay into the countries that allow them to make those huge profits in the first place by being stable and having good infrastructure. They'd still be fabulously wealthy. However it seems like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is the order of the day.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? This entire story is about apple and such doing just that, paying what they are legally required to pay. You may think they need to pay more or shouldn't be able to legally avoid some taxes, but they certainly are paying into the US which is what the story is about.
When the government and it's stooges go around saying that the NSA phone spying is not violating anyone's civil rights because it is business records owned by the businesses, the data is the problem- period.
I'm curious if some of these devices actually have the processing power to locally do the things they are trying to do. Maybe costs cutting has led to underpowered hardware.
But an AK is scary. It is the evil gun in movies, the evil gun portrayed by gun control advocates everywhere. And everyone knows there is only one reason to own an AK. That reason is to open beer bottles and beer is bad.
Seriously. It was for the shock factor of the story. Probably no other considerations went into making the choice.
You do realize that Reagan raised taxes on the rich don't you?
And the 50s and 60s is a relative outlier due to the economic activity present in rebuilding almost an entire continent after a devastating world war. This change towards the end of the 60s (Europe being rebuilt and relying less on U.S. goods) is why Nixon had to dismantle some of the Bretton Woods system and take the U.S. off the silver standard.
But hey, let's not let pesky little things like history or facts get in the way. Its a good thing you are not a gun- going off half cocked and loosely aimed into a crowd of people like that.
Why yes it is infinite. They can just make more without any inflation or anything. That is because it is in Panama. Every one knows it is hot down there so they don't need any inflation in their walls to keep the heat in when it is winter.
My question is how many people will read that as a serious comment and how many of them think attacking the rich is the proper thing to do with taxes. I'm sure some will find it completely rational.
I've seen this posted several places and have to ask why you think it is a problem. Modern government in the US is often no different than the mob. They seem to be more worried about their personal wealth. They seem to ignore laws (in some cases the same laws they made). They crush people who stand against them.
But when the choice is between Trump and Hillary, you say mobster like it means something. But it ignores the long list of mob like things associated with the Clintons. There are all the laws supposedly broken. The list of 50 or so people who supposedly died mysteriously who had association with them. Then there are two people who supposedly had dirt on them who died mysteriously -one in a plane crash and the other suicide. But it goes further with Hillary making millions in the futures market while Bill was president. Somehow spending all that so they were broke when leaving the white house to being millionaires again a few years after with 5 mansions across the country.
Its almost like your saying trump is less qualified as Hillary because he only knows mobsters and isn't one himself.
Some of us don't believe religion in the various forms to be the biggest threat in their lives. In fact, we actually think those that do aren't very stable mentally. Perhaps that comes from there never being a state sponsored religion in the US and always having the ability to walk away from any religion (even if a court case is needed)
Why is the solutions always the opposite extreme of the problem with people like you? Why isn't there ever a middle ground where there are rich people and poor or poorer people who actually benefit from the economic activity in our own country created by the investments the rich people participate instead of doing the equivalent of stuffing their money in a mattress overseas somewhere?
It seems to me that some would prefer the poor to be poorer as long as the rich are not as rich. A foreign politician made a similar observation years ago when the world was a lot more economically stable and a lot of Americans were in better financial situations. But she was a woman and no one listened to her in the US.
You mean like how Microsoft sets up licensing companies in states inside the US that have low taxes to avoid paying higher taxes from sales in Washington?
They don't even need to pretend to be in another country to do this. But it illiterates how attacking companies via high taxes works against us.
Neither Obama nor his administration has a lawful ability to repeal a judge's decision. Only a higher court or a change in law or the U.S. constitution can do so.
Actually, you are only half correct. The objection is not to selling a cake or anything to anyone. The objection is to having to show up at the ceremony and coordinate with it.
You see, unless you are holding your wedding at white castle or something, the wedding cake is not made and completed for someone to swing in on the way like for a birthday party or something. The layers are transported separate and assembled on site and the decorations and finishing touches are done on site but often due to the heat, needs to be done last minute else it melts into a mess.
If the wedding cake was as simple as someone stopping by and loading it into a prius, the objections wouldn't be there. This is evidenced by the long standing commercial relationship with the gay people who filed suit I
Hogwash. Murder has a specific definition and you cannot make your own up. Well you can but don't expect anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence to take you seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't someone just create an app to make your phone send bogus location data? Then you can plot points in the middle of the ocean or some foreign city and have different locations for different apps.
For me, any app that needs to know where i am other than a map program just doesn't get installed or used. I'm likely not alone in that either.
Wow..
So 10% of 100 is less than 10% of 1000 and that is a bad thing except when it comes to taxes. Well i guess which taxes you are confabulating.
And it is bad that your mortgage interest is at 3% instead of 13% because low interest rates are bad.
And if you put 20 years in at a company making buggy whips that goes bankrupt without that 401k what happens?
I don't doubt you "think" my math is bad.
They would probably block payment by credit cards or something, sue in a local court, then sue to recover the judgment in a U.S. court. Netflix would likely counter punch with a WIPO trade violation if they can convince anyone in the U.S. government to back them.
Silly rabbit. ... all that will happen is the cost of entertainment in Europe will increase. You will get more advertising by default and subscription fees will increase. You might even get regular shows with crappy audio dubbing just to comply but they won't be quite the same.
Mortgage deductions? So any who owns a house is rich now?
Quantitative easing is to save the government - not the rich. It creates inflation but at a controlled rate.
401k's are there specifically to make pensions transferable. It specifically helps the poorer.
Try some other examples. And please put some effort into it this time.
You lost me. How about some examples.
What deliberate transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich? What law was passed that said you have to give the rich money or anything? What specific policy was it?
It sounds like you don't have a clue. You certainly don't when it comes to what you think I want. There is no finite supply of money so the wealthy getting more means nothing at all as long as the poorer get more too. You simply cannot separate the economy so it is profitable for the poor and not for the rich. Anything that helps the poorer will by default be advantageous to the rich also. Anything that restricts the rich will hurt the poorer too. This is why the phrase was correct. You do not care if the poor are poorer as long as the rich are not more rich.
I suspect your problem comes from expecting of government to do what you should be doing for yourself and looking for a boogeyman to blame when that is mismanaged. Yes, companies should pay taxes on the economic activity within a country. Yes they need to follow the laws. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. But chances are the fact that they are not already changed has something to do with you not understanding the economic sense of the existing laws or the ramifications of your favored changes.
It's probably not suitable for a cruise ship due to the way it heels when under power from the masts. It likely might be able to be somewhat useful if that problem can be addressed but you don't really want 60 year old ladies or little kids walking along a deck heeling a 20 degree or better angle.
Pawn shops that take firearms should be federally license dealers under federal law. I'm not sure that the same requirement is true for gunsmiths.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...
I scanned through this (PDF warning) but didn't spend much time on it. It appears that in some instances, a gun smith is a dealer and in others they are not.
Nope, but you have to go through a separate legal process to obtain ownership of the gun rather than the transfer at time of the pawn.
This is just like taking your car to the repair shop. Once they tell you it is fixed, if you do not pick it up after a certain time, they can go through a legal process to transfer ownership and resell the car for the bill owed. Same with towing a vehicle in most places, it is still yours until you default and the legal process is started.
And yet these other states with the more lax gun laws don't seem to have the same problem as Chicago.
Maybe the problem _is_ the restriction of rights. Perhaps not the right to own a gun by itself but I'm thinking it plays along in there too.
The gap between the rich and the poor? What the hell does that have to do with anything? There is not a finite supply of money and if one person gets more it means someone _will_have_to get less. This isn't marbles on second grade recess we are playing here. Wealth is created and the more wealth in society, the more money is printed or in the case of electronic funds, it is just represented. There is no problem with the rich getting richer that taxing them will solve.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? This entire story is about apple and such doing just that, paying what they are legally required to pay. You may think they need to pay more or shouldn't be able to legally avoid some taxes, but they certainly are paying into the US which is what the story is about.
When the government and it's stooges go around saying that the NSA phone spying is not violating anyone's civil rights because it is business records owned by the businesses, the data is the problem- period.
I'm curious if some of these devices actually have the processing power to locally do the things they are trying to do. Maybe costs cutting has led to underpowered hardware.
I'm wondering if anyone knows for sure.
But an AK is scary. It is the evil gun in movies, the evil gun portrayed by gun control advocates everywhere. And everyone knows there is only one reason to own an AK. That reason is to open beer bottles and beer is bad.
Seriously. It was for the shock factor of the story. Probably no other considerations went into making the choice.
You do realize that Reagan raised taxes on the rich don't you?
And the 50s and 60s is a relative outlier due to the economic activity present in rebuilding almost an entire continent after a devastating world war. This change towards the end of the 60s (Europe being rebuilt and relying less on U.S. goods) is why Nixon had to dismantle some of the Bretton Woods system and take the U.S. off the silver standard.
But hey, let's not let pesky little things like history or facts get in the way. Its a good thing you are not a gun- going off half cocked and loosely aimed into a crowd of people like that.
Why yes it is infinite. They can just make more without any inflation or anything. That is because it is in Panama. Every one knows it is hot down there so they don't need any inflation in their walls to keep the heat in when it is winter.
My question is how many people will read that as a serious comment and how many of them think attacking the rich is the proper thing to do with taxes. I'm sure some will find it completely rational.
I've seen this posted several places and have to ask why you think it is a problem. Modern government in the US is often no different than the mob. They seem to be more worried about their personal wealth. They seem to ignore laws (in some cases the same laws they made). They crush people who stand against them.
But when the choice is between Trump and Hillary, you say mobster like it means something. But it ignores the long list of mob like things associated with the Clintons. There are all the laws supposedly broken. The list of 50 or so people who supposedly died mysteriously who had association with them. Then there are two people who supposedly had dirt on them who died mysteriously -one in a plane crash and the other suicide. But it goes further with Hillary making millions in the futures market while Bill was president. Somehow spending all that so they were broke when leaving the white house to being millionaires again a few years after with 5 mansions across the country.
Its almost like your saying trump is less qualified as Hillary because he only knows mobsters and isn't one himself.
Some of us don't believe religion in the various forms to be the biggest threat in their lives. In fact, we actually think those that do aren't very stable mentally. Perhaps that comes from there never being a state sponsored religion in the US and always having the ability to walk away from any religion (even if a court case is needed)
Why is the solutions always the opposite extreme of the problem with people like you? Why isn't there ever a middle ground where there are rich people and poor or poorer people who actually benefit from the economic activity in our own country created by the investments the rich people participate instead of doing the equivalent of stuffing their money in a mattress overseas somewhere?
It seems to me that some would prefer the poor to be poorer as long as the rich are not as rich. A foreign politician made a similar observation years ago when the world was a lot more economically stable and a lot of Americans were in better financial situations. But she was a woman and no one listened to her in the US.
You mean like how Microsoft sets up licensing companies in states inside the US that have low taxes to avoid paying higher taxes from sales in Washington?
They don't even need to pretend to be in another country to do this. But it illiterates how attacking companies via high taxes works against us.
Neither Obama nor his administration has a lawful ability to repeal a judge's decision. Only a higher court or a change in law or the U.S. constitution can do so.
Actually, you are only half correct. The objection is not to selling a cake or anything to anyone. The objection is to having to show up at the ceremony and coordinate with it.
You see, unless you are holding your wedding at white castle or something, the wedding cake is not made and completed for someone to swing in on the way like for a birthday party or something. The layers are transported separate and assembled on site and the decorations and finishing touches are done on site but often due to the heat, needs to be done last minute else it melts into a mess.
If the wedding cake was as simple as someone stopping by and loading it into a prius, the objections wouldn't be there. This is evidenced by the long standing commercial relationship with the gay people who filed suit I
Actually, yes the state does. Murder is a legal term for killing someone.
Hogwash. Murder has a specific definition and you cannot make your own up. Well you can but don't expect anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence to take you seriously.