In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete.
Don't you follow the news? Bear Sterns, Fannie, and Freddie got rewarded for past greedy incompetence with buyouts for future greedy incompetence, and now GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $50B loan guarantees for their own future greedy incompetence. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda plan ahead and make cars people want, but you can bet your bottom tax dollar they won't get rewarded for competence.
Of course, two of those 68 molecules are RNA and DNA. The other 66 should be cake for anyone who understands either one of them.
Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, the real reason for selling kits is to avoid safety and pollution controls. A manufacturer has to deal with those, but a kit maker doesn't, at least to some degree. I don't know all the ins and outs of it. Maybe kit makers avoid those problems only if the kit modifies an existing car. But I bet this guy avoids them too since he is not selling a car. Maybe the catch is that the builder (the kit buyer) will have to deal with safety and pollution controls, and probably not be able to register it.
Why wouldn't this also affect mammals? Is there an implication that dinosaurs had more primitive immune systems? Is any of this more than mere speculation?
I also would have thought dinosaurs had thicker skin, if for no other reason than having a lot more meat to hold together than the puny mammals of the time. Is this not a factor? Do modern day elephants and rhinoceroses suffer from insect infestations even tho they have thick skins?
And lastly, I thought recent research had shown that the slow dying theory was just an artifact of the skimpy fossil record, that they did indeed die out very abruptly at the K-T layer. Is my memory wrong here?
Yes, you are right. I was responding to the idea that the tax code doesn't cope well with the modern world. I don't know now whether I responded to the wrong post or whether I thought he should have made it more clear.
Mea culpa. Sorry 'bout that, hal2814. Either a slip of the fingers or the mind, either way I screwed up.
But where is the purchase made? In a face to face transaction, it's obvious. But with mail order, phone, and internet sales, the arbitrary decision was made that the buyer is the point of sale, and that is what brings in all the problems of the seller having to know the sales tax at the buyer's location. If the arbitrary decision were just as arbitrarily made that the seller is the point of sale, things would have been a lot simpler.
Either way is arbitrary. One way is complicated, one way is simple. Taxes collected would average out the same, so of course governments chose the complicated way.
This is the worst part of US sales taxes. The entire mess could be avoided if taxes were collected based on the seller's location, not the buyer's. Amazon would collect Washington state tax (if they are indeed a Washington state company) on ALL purchases, at the same rate. Of course companies would consider the sales tax rate when deciding where to locate, but that would be no different from considering property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, labor laws, etc.
No it isn't the same. New York claims to tax Amazon purchases even though Amazon has no physical presence in New York precisely because Amazon has an affiliate program; if a New York resident is an affiliate, they claim sales tax on purchases made via that affiliate. It's a new wrinkle on things, but it isn't nearly as bizarre or blatantly illegal as most people suggest.
I deal with sales taxes all the time. New York most certainly does have a use tax. I don't know of any state with a sales tax and no use tax. Where do you get this idea?
Sales taxes mostly started in the 1930s, and back then there was little difference between taxing the buyer or taxing the seller.
Out of state sales complicate the picture. The original mail order business didn't matter, since it started before sales taxes were invented. But once sales taxes came along, states "naturally" wanted sales taxes collected by hq for mail order sales from within a state if that company had a physical presence in the state; they saw it as only fair, since it was as if the customer had gone to the store and bought it anyway. Anyone who is of a sufficient age will remember catalog order forms which included lines for sales tax in different states -- they'd list each state they had nexus in and the rate for that state, and you were expected to calculate the tax and add it to the total, and write a check for the full amount. I am not quite old enough to know what happened if you calculated it wrongly or left it out altogether.
Phone sales mostly started after the invention of sales taxes, but both phone sales and mail order sales only collected the basic state tax rate.
What has really screwed the pooch is internet sales. If a company has any nexus in your state, they have to pay the sales tax for your jurisdiction, and since US sales tax varies by state, city, county, and a lot of mosquito abatement districts, school districts, hospital districts, football stadium districts, etc etc etc, figuring out tax for your specific jurisdiction is a real nightmare. I am not sure how this mess started. It used to be that states had one common rate, but then counties and cities and every little podunk jurisdiction added their own fractional tax, and now it is an ungodly mess.
Somewhere along the line, states came up with a new wrinkle, the use tax, which is mostly (but not always) the same rate as the sales tax. If you buy something from an out of state company which has no nexus (no physical presence in your state), you are supposed to keep track of that and pay the use tax on it, I suppose every quarter or at end of year. Of course most people don't even know about this, and fewer still actually pay it.
The whole mess could be easily solved if taxes were based strictly on the seller's jurisdiction, not the buyers'. If Amazon simply collected Washington state tax on every transaction, life would be infinitely simpler for everybody concerned. Of course, greedy states don't want that -- they want their share of everybody's pie and don't care what a hassle it is.
What a stretch. Your whole bizarre argument rests on thinking of Iraq as having a functioning democracy.
The government there, which has only the outward appearance of a democracy, stays in place only as long as the US bleeds for it. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. It has to come from the people themselves. As long as any government is propped up by outsiders, it is not a government of its own people, and is not a functioning government, let alone a functioning democracy.
So once a bank robber leaves the bank, or the home invasion murderer leaves the house full of people he has just killed, we just stop worrying about it?
I don't believe that our foreign policy created terrorists.
Good grief you are living in a fantasy world. What do you think the Iranians thought when the US installed the Shah in 1954? What do you think the Kurds and Shiites thought when the US provided the chemicals used to make the poison gas he attcked them with? What do you think all Latin Americans thought when the US installed governments friendly to them and their banana corporations, over and over again?
Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history could come up with numerous examples of the US setting up governments contrary to local wishes. To not see the resentment that brings, and the "terrorists" that creates, is willful ignorance sufficient to qualify you for a position in the Bush regime.
It IS funny how things are changing so fast. I got out of the Navy to find modular phone jacks had become widespread in just four years. "What are these new fangled things?" Heck, I was used to opening up the "borrowed" ATT phone to silence the mechanical bell so ATT couldn't tell you had an extension in the house by calling and seeing how much power was drawn, and now you could get your own phones?
It is also funny to watch movies around the time cell phones started to become available but were not yet common, so the movie uses one but they have to insert careful dialog to explain it to the audience. "This is my portable phone number." "Is that your cellular phone ringing?"
Then try to explain to some kid why Sergeant Pepper ends the way it does on the flip side, because it made sense on vinyl LPs to take advantage of the final revolution of the spiral joining itself.
The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?
Yes. It is interrupt driven rather than polled. Polling was one of the lamest decisions the original USB designers made. For those who don't know the difference, interrupt driven is similar to a phone ringing to get your attention. If it were a polling device, you'd have to pull it out of your pocket every few seconds to see if anyone was calling.
The problem is that wiggling destroys the socket, not the replaceable cable.
The solution is to put the extension cable into the socket so it ends with a socket, and if that socket end is destroyed by too many cable changes, you replace it. If you get 100 changes per destroyed socket, you can replace the extension cable 100 times, and if you take more care with that than regular changes, you will get more than 100 changes there.
Slashdot Mirror
You know how one way to stop feeling the hurt of a stubbed toe is to get a bigger hurt?
Google for goatse.cx ....
In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete.
Don't you follow the news? Bear Sterns, Fannie, and Freddie got rewarded for past greedy incompetence with buyouts for future greedy incompetence, and now GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $50B loan guarantees for their own future greedy incompetence. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda plan ahead and make cars people want, but you can bet your bottom tax dollar they won't get rewarded for competence.
Of course, two of those 68 molecules are RNA and DNA. The other 66 should be cake for anyone who understands either one of them.
No, the real reason for selling kits is to avoid safety and pollution controls. A manufacturer has to deal with those, but a kit maker doesn't, at least to some degree. I don't know all the ins and outs of it. Maybe kit makers avoid those problems only if the kit modifies an existing car. But I bet this guy avoids them too since he is not selling a car. Maybe the catch is that the builder (the kit buyer) will have to deal with safety and pollution controls, and probably not be able to register it.
Why wouldn't this also affect mammals? Is there an implication that dinosaurs had more primitive immune systems? Is any of this more than mere speculation?
I also would have thought dinosaurs had thicker skin, if for no other reason than having a lot more meat to hold together than the puny mammals of the time. Is this not a factor? Do modern day elephants and rhinoceroses suffer from insect infestations even tho they have thick skins?
And lastly, I thought recent research had shown that the slow dying theory was just an artifact of the skimpy fossil record, that they did indeed die out very abruptly at the K-T layer. Is my memory wrong here?
Yes, you are right. I was responding to the idea that the tax code doesn't cope well with the modern world. I don't know now whether I responded to the wrong post or whether I thought he should have made it more clear.
Mea culpa. Sorry 'bout that, hal2814. Either a slip of the fingers or the mind, either way I screwed up.
Because one state or the other IS going to collect a sales tax. The decision is entirely arbitrary, but seller-based is MUCH simpler than buyer-based.
Corporations always have had many things to consider when choosing where to have headquarters.
1. States without sales tax have higher taxes elsewise. Property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, they make up that revenue somewhere.
2. Other states would reduce their sales taxes, either altogether or in specific agreements with corporations.
3. There are other considerations, such as education, labor laws, centrality to transportation, cost of power, cost of labor.
Things would stablize pretty quickly.
But where is the purchase made? In a face to face transaction, it's obvious. But with mail order, phone, and internet sales, the arbitrary decision was made that the buyer is the point of sale, and that is what brings in all the problems of the seller having to know the sales tax at the buyer's location. If the arbitrary decision were just as arbitrarily made that the seller is the point of sale, things would have been a lot simpler.
Either way is arbitrary. One way is complicated, one way is simple. Taxes collected would average out the same, so of course governments chose the complicated way.
My guess is they want Amazon to collect sales tax because they can't enforce the use tax.
I agree with it being immoral and just plain wrong.
Where does an Amazon sale take place?
This is the worst part of US sales taxes. The entire mess could be avoided if taxes were collected based on the seller's location, not the buyer's. Amazon would collect Washington state tax (if they are indeed a Washington state company) on ALL purchases, at the same rate. Of course companies would consider the sales tax rate when deciding where to locate, but that would be no different from considering property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, labor laws, etc.
No it isn't the same. New York claims to tax Amazon purchases even though Amazon has no physical presence in New York precisely because Amazon has an affiliate program; if a New York resident is an affiliate, they claim sales tax on purchases made via that affiliate. It's a new wrinkle on things, but it isn't nearly as bizarre or blatantly illegal as most people suggest.
You're timing is off a bit. Mail order sales started in the late 1800s. The first sales tax was in 1921, and most didn't start until the 1930s.
It's surprising to me that New York doesn't.
I deal with sales taxes all the time. New York most certainly does have a use tax. I don't know of any state with a sales tax and no use tax. Where do you get this idea?
Sales taxes mostly started in the 1930s, and back then there was little difference between taxing the buyer or taxing the seller.
Out of state sales complicate the picture. The original mail order business didn't matter, since it started before sales taxes were invented. But once sales taxes came along, states "naturally" wanted sales taxes collected by hq for mail order sales from within a state if that company had a physical presence in the state; they saw it as only fair, since it was as if the customer had gone to the store and bought it anyway. Anyone who is of a sufficient age will remember catalog order forms which included lines for sales tax in different states -- they'd list each state they had nexus in and the rate for that state, and you were expected to calculate the tax and add it to the total, and write a check for the full amount. I am not quite old enough to know what happened if you calculated it wrongly or left it out altogether.
Phone sales mostly started after the invention of sales taxes, but both phone sales and mail order sales only collected the basic state tax rate.
What has really screwed the pooch is internet sales. If a company has any nexus in your state, they have to pay the sales tax for your jurisdiction, and since US sales tax varies by state, city, county, and a lot of mosquito abatement districts, school districts, hospital districts, football stadium districts, etc etc etc, figuring out tax for your specific jurisdiction is a real nightmare. I am not sure how this mess started. It used to be that states had one common rate, but then counties and cities and every little podunk jurisdiction added their own fractional tax, and now it is an ungodly mess.
Somewhere along the line, states came up with a new wrinkle, the use tax, which is mostly (but not always) the same rate as the sales tax. If you buy something from an out of state company which has no nexus (no physical presence in your state), you are supposed to keep track of that and pay the use tax on it, I suppose every quarter or at end of year. Of course most people don't even know about this, and fewer still actually pay it.
The whole mess could be easily solved if taxes were based strictly on the seller's jurisdiction, not the buyers'. If Amazon simply collected Washington state tax on every transaction, life would be infinitely simpler for everybody concerned. Of course, greedy states don't want that -- they want their share of everybody's pie and don't care what a hassle it is.
If installing a faux democracy in Iraq has reduced terrorism, why are there more terrorists in Iraq now than before under Saddam?
What a stretch. Your whole bizarre argument rests on thinking of Iraq as having a functioning democracy.
The government there, which has only the outward appearance of a democracy, stays in place only as long as the US bleeds for it. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. It has to come from the people themselves. As long as any government is propped up by outsiders, it is not a government of its own people, and is not a functioning government, let alone a functioning democracy.
So once a bank robber leaves the bank, or the home invasion murderer leaves the house full of people he has just killed, we just stop worrying about it?
I don't believe that our foreign policy created terrorists.
Good grief you are living in a fantasy world. What do you think the Iranians thought when the US installed the Shah in 1954? What do you think the Kurds and Shiites thought when the US provided the chemicals used to make the poison gas he attcked them with? What do you think all Latin Americans thought when the US installed governments friendly to them and their banana corporations, over and over again?
Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history could come up with numerous examples of the US setting up governments contrary to local wishes. To not see the resentment that brings, and the "terrorists" that creates, is willful ignorance sufficient to qualify you for a position in the Bush regime.
Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of congress critters at their disposal?
Fixed it for ya.
Yeah, how dare he sell games that no-one else is interested in selling.
How do you come to that conclusion?
It IS funny how things are changing so fast. I got out of the Navy to find modular phone jacks had become widespread in just four years. "What are these new fangled things?" Heck, I was used to opening up the "borrowed" ATT phone to silence the mechanical bell so ATT couldn't tell you had an extension in the house by calling and seeing how much power was drawn, and now you could get your own phones?
It is also funny to watch movies around the time cell phones started to become available but were not yet common, so the movie uses one but they have to insert careful dialog to explain it to the audience. "This is my portable phone number." "Is that your cellular phone ringing?"
Then try to explain to some kid why Sergeant Pepper ends the way it does on the flip side, because it made sense on vinyl LPs to take advantage of the final revolution of the spiral joining itself.
The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?
Yes. It is interrupt driven rather than polled. Polling was one of the lamest decisions the original USB designers made. For those who don't know the difference, interrupt driven is similar to a phone ringing to get your attention. If it were a polling device, you'd have to pull it out of your pocket every few seconds to see if anyone was calling.
I do go through a lot of USB cables though.
The problem is that wiggling destroys the socket, not the replaceable cable.
The solution is to put the extension cable into the socket so it ends with a socket, and if that socket end is destroyed by too many cable changes, you replace it. If you get 100 changes per destroyed socket, you can replace the extension cable 100 times, and if you take more care with that than regular changes, you will get more than 100 changes there.
Who says you have to have multiple sets of in-laws? Just marry sisters and/or brothers, or heck, marry the in-laws too!