cooking up a tax avoidance scheme, knowing that the IRS might eventually catch up with you
This doesn't make sense. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It's tax evasion that isn't And if you are complying with the law, the worst the IRS can do is to change the law (at the direction of Congress) and plug your loophole going forward.
To be fair, Turkey just went through a coup attempt. So perhaps a bit of paranoia is to be expected from Erdogan and his government. And the British aren't very far behind Turkey in terms of Internet privacy. Just to keep things in perspective.
It doesn't really matter. Either the museum or NASA forfeited ownership by not picking it up from the US Marshals. There might be a case for NASA to sue the museum for negligence in handling a loaned object (if it was).
There's also the possible problem of the US Marshals not knowing who owned the bag. They might have believed it belonged to NASA and notified them. At which time, NASA property management may have said (to themselves) 'Nope. Not ours.' But failed to forward the notification the museum to go pick up their bag.
How so? I mean from a safety standpoint. Not a "Lets collect more permit fees from businesses just because we can" approach. What safety and performance regulations do business' self-driving cars have to meet that someone's personal Tesla does not?
I don't have a Yahoo account. I've used some Yahoo services, but always anonymously. So, no login to steal. I just received "Important Security Information for Yahoo Users". Which instructs me to go to a Yahoo account page and change my password and security questions. Well, I don't have one. But I'm willing to bet that Yahoo's account maintenance page will walk me through setting one up, should I bother to visit it. I'm not even going there to confirm that they hit a valid e-mail address.
My guess is: In addition to legitimate Yahoo users (who really should change passwords), they have a mailing list that they are using to generate new accounts. To pt them in a better negotiating position for the eventual Verizon/whoever buy-out.
I feel the concept of marriage itself will also become extinct.
Why? Perhaps it just needs some modification. Polygamy is a system where, when you get the hots for a new partner, you don't have to dump the old one. People seem to think that polygamous marriages are one big orgy. Not really. It just keeps the ongoing obligation one has to past spouses and offspring as a part of the family structure.
The bullshit system we have of monogamous marriages and divorces completely overlooks the fact that our legal system keeps spouses economically bound together afterwards for the sake of the kids. It's de facto polygamy with a dash of animosity and a healthy cut for the lawyers.
Read 'Sex at Dawn' by Ryan and Jetha. Homo Sapiens are physiologically set up to copulate with multiple partners. And do so very frequently. That said, absence of the baculum to facilitate quick sex makes perfect sense in polygamous groups. There is no need to prolong coitus to 'keep her away from competing males'. When your turn is up, the next guy steps in. Taking too much time is impolite.
Also, read what Ryan and Jetha have to say about publishing anything that contradicts 'the standard narrative.'
What regulations? What are the minimum design and performance standards that Uber (or anyone else) must demonstrate to get their self driving car permits? Because if they don't have any, it boils down to "pay us $X for this piece of paper which lets you do something." Put another way, it's the state saying "That's a nice little business you have there, buddy. Shame if something bad happened to it."
What are they? What regulations do Uber (or any other autonomous vehicle manufacturers) have to comply with? Or is this just California demanding that they issue royal permits to the local tradespeople? Given California's track record with regulation, I'd be more comfortable with standards set by NHTSA. California is going to have to deal with autonomous vehicles driven in from other states anyway. So better that we have nationwide standards.
There's a bit of state level meta-gaming going on with employment law.
There certainly is. States are trying to hand out unearned benefits and get someone else to pay for them. And if someone tries to step around the employer/employee model that they use to do this, they get upset. I'd rather take $X per hour for the hours that I work, or negotiate a pay for performance contract and go buy my benefits on my own. Others would like the security of state mandated benefits packages. That's fine. There should be opportunities for each.
There exists a market for people who want to drive passengers around for 40 hours per week and get someone else to handle the overhead. It's called being a cab driver. Uber was supposed to be a 'gig' job. A way to make a few bucks driving passengers from A to B if you happened to be available to do that. But some people figured that this would be a full time job and they* want to squeeze out those who look at it as a way to make a few extra bucks on top of a steady job.
*I'll bet that much of the motivation behind the Uber drivers as employees comes from cab drivers' organizations or unions. And they are just using the state as a front to pull Uber down to their level.
But there are a lot of part time jobs that manage to slip under the threshold for many benefits. Some by design of the employer, some by the availability of the worker (gig work, etc.).
If you're running a business and can't afford to pay your workers enough money to get by on
It's possible that someone did meet his future wife by posing as a married man. Quite a few women (both married and single) troll for hookups among these guys. Perhaps they figure if he's married once, he'll do it again. Or just that he's good blackmail material. Back in my single days, wearing a wedding ring improved my success rate. But on AM; not going there myself.
Slashdot Mirror
cooking up a tax avoidance scheme, knowing that the IRS might eventually catch up with you
This doesn't make sense. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It's tax evasion that isn't And if you are complying with the law, the worst the IRS can do is to change the law (at the direction of Congress) and plug your loophole going forward.
To be fair, Turkey just went through a coup attempt. So perhaps a bit of paranoia is to be expected from Erdogan and his government. And the British aren't very far behind Turkey in terms of Internet privacy. Just to keep things in perspective.
Sentry guns.
Why not just ban war?
It doesn't really matter. Either the museum or NASA forfeited ownership by not picking it up from the US Marshals. There might be a case for NASA to sue the museum for negligence in handling a loaned object (if it was).
There's also the possible problem of the US Marshals not knowing who owned the bag. They might have believed it belonged to NASA and notified them. At which time, NASA property management may have said (to themselves) 'Nope. Not ours.' But failed to forward the notification the museum to go pick up their bag.
Either way, not the problem of Carlson.
Flying cars.
Remember, you heard it here first.
This is something that a 100 meter rise in the sea level will solve quite easily.
We were simply collecting data on the effects of ocean environments on deadly pathogens. You guys didn't actually open or touch that drone in any way?
It belongs to China, it even has the word China in it.
New Mexico?
How so? I mean from a safety standpoint. Not a "Lets collect more permit fees from businesses just because we can" approach. What safety and performance regulations do business' self-driving cars have to meet that someone's personal Tesla does not?
I think you might be onto something here.
I don't have a Yahoo account. I've used some Yahoo services, but always anonymously. So, no login to steal. I just received "Important Security Information for Yahoo Users". Which instructs me to go to a Yahoo account page and change my password and security questions. Well, I don't have one. But I'm willing to bet that Yahoo's account maintenance page will walk me through setting one up, should I bother to visit it. I'm not even going there to confirm that they hit a valid e-mail address.
My guess is: In addition to legitimate Yahoo users (who really should change passwords), they have a mailing list that they are using to generate new accounts. To pt them in a better negotiating position for the eventual Verizon/whoever buy-out.
Conservatives want women to be handed out as prizes to the faithful. And maybe bogart the pretty ones for the church elders.
I feel the concept of marriage itself will also become extinct.
Why? Perhaps it just needs some modification. Polygamy is a system where, when you get the hots for a new partner, you don't have to dump the old one. People seem to think that polygamous marriages are one big orgy. Not really. It just keeps the ongoing obligation one has to past spouses and offspring as a part of the family structure.
The bullshit system we have of monogamous marriages and divorces completely overlooks the fact that our legal system keeps spouses economically bound together afterwards for the sake of the kids. It's de facto polygamy with a dash of animosity and a healthy cut for the lawyers.
Apostles taught what Jesus told them
He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules.
Impressive.
Or short legs.
This.
Read 'Sex at Dawn' by Ryan and Jetha. Homo Sapiens are physiologically set up to copulate with multiple partners. And do so very frequently. That said, absence of the baculum to facilitate quick sex makes perfect sense in polygamous groups. There is no need to prolong coitus to 'keep her away from competing males'. When your turn is up, the next guy steps in. Taking too much time is impolite.
Also, read what Ryan and Jetha have to say about publishing anything that contradicts 'the standard narrative.'
governments to regulate businesses
What regulations? What are the minimum design and performance standards that Uber (or anyone else) must demonstrate to get their self driving car permits? Because if they don't have any, it boils down to "pay us $X for this piece of paper which lets you do something." Put another way, it's the state saying "That's a nice little business you have there, buddy. Shame if something bad happened to it."
Illegal? No. Unethical? Most certainly.
contracts driving out to private contractors
Because they see the end of that business model coming.
What are they? What regulations do Uber (or any other autonomous vehicle manufacturers) have to comply with? Or is this just California demanding that they issue royal permits to the local tradespeople? Given California's track record with regulation, I'd be more comfortable with standards set by NHTSA. California is going to have to deal with autonomous vehicles driven in from other states anyway. So better that we have nationwide standards.
There's a bit of state level meta-gaming going on with employment law.
There certainly is. States are trying to hand out unearned benefits and get someone else to pay for them. And if someone tries to step around the employer/employee model that they use to do this, they get upset. I'd rather take $X per hour for the hours that I work, or negotiate a pay for performance contract and go buy my benefits on my own. Others would like the security of state mandated benefits packages. That's fine. There should be opportunities for each.
There exists a market for people who want to drive passengers around for 40 hours per week and get someone else to handle the overhead. It's called being a cab driver. Uber was supposed to be a 'gig' job. A way to make a few bucks driving passengers from A to B if you happened to be available to do that. But some people figured that this would be a full time job and they* want to squeeze out those who look at it as a way to make a few extra bucks on top of a steady job.
*I'll bet that much of the motivation behind the Uber drivers as employees comes from cab drivers' organizations or unions. And they are just using the state as a front to pull Uber down to their level.
If you work 40 hours a week
But there are a lot of part time jobs that manage to slip under the threshold for many benefits. Some by design of the employer, some by the availability of the worker (gig work, etc.).
If you're running a business and can't afford to pay your workers enough money to get by on
Somebody stole my Hope Diamond.
you would have met someone else's wife
Or a pro. But most probably a chatbot.
It's possible that someone did meet his future wife by posing as a married man. Quite a few women (both married and single) troll for hookups among these guys. Perhaps they figure if he's married once, he'll do it again. Or just that he's good blackmail material. Back in my single days, wearing a wedding ring improved my success rate. But on AM; not going there myself.