An organization that is out of the limelight, but has made many historic contributions is pushing something from an even older organization that has been out of the limelight for a longer time, and made many more historic contributions.
Nope. All I saw was an organization that maintains a distribution that is the basis for one of the fastest growing Linux distributions offer a distribution based on a kernel made by an organization that maintains one of the most used software compiler suites and userland tools. Please tell me where I should be looking.:P
It's 2012. There may be something to that Mayan calendar afterall. I knew we were doomed when the Red Sox won the world series, the New Orleans Saints won the super bowl, and the Auburn University Football team won the BCS championship... War Eagle!
I know its purely anecdotal but I have Apple computers that are PowerPCs and they are still running well without problems. I have several first generation Intel models and I haven't had a problem. During that same period, I've had 1 dead Sony laptop, 3 dead Dell Desktops, and 2 operational but basically worthless Dell laptops due to their cases breaking at key mechanical points (eg hinges, latches, keyboard).
I also haven't had any problems with last year's model of the iMac 27 i7 or the previous year iMac 24 core2 duo. We pretty much went all Mac for all new purchases because of the great experience we have with Apple computers and their excellent customer support. Apple sent us a notice last year to come by the store and fix one of our white macbook chasis for free because they considered some cracking to be a manufacturing defect. I have 2 completely broken Dell laptops that are around the same age, so we didn't consider a crack on a macbook to be that big of a deal.
Who is this "their" you talk about? I assume you were being sarcastic since I don't have a proprietary build system on my Mac and the build system was provided by Apple. I assume you meant those Windows guys.
I was thinking more in the lines of videoconferencing, mobile communications, telecommuting / remote access, collaborating software/groupware, improved GIS packages, improved laptops and portable workstations, tablets, distributed databases, outsourced office applications with IT support (aka "the cloud"), professional networking (like LinkedIn not ethernet), crowd sourcing, wireless high speed internet while traveling, wireless video conferencing, and electronic business banking solutions (aka wire transfers on demand, electronic escrow, credit card processing). These are just things off the top of my head, I'm sure one of the many "road warriors" can come up with more.
I remember when most of the stuff I mentioned where only conceivable for the wealthiest corporations, and yet now even the modest small business can take advantage of this technology. I know the progression to this current level of tech was slow in today's fast paced environment (ie "boiling the frog") but if you compare the office of 2011 with the office of 2001 the advances are startling.
So what is Cavanaugh's definition of innovation? I mean how much improvements can you make to a word processor and a spreadsheet?
What 10 year period is Kevin Cavanaugh talking about? If he honestly believes that there hasn't been any innovation in the "office space" then I can see why some are saying that IBM is becoming more irrelevant.
Agree. Too bad their timing sucks and they are increasing their combined plan fee to $16 around the same time they lose access to movies from Sony entertainment and will likely be losing Starz Online soon.
If I drop DVD (which I plan to do anyway because Red Box is better), my rate stays the same $8, but the quantity (and quality) of movies available is lower. Whereas, HBOgo which I get free in exchange for paying for my Wife's addiction to True Blood is actually pretty damn nice and the streaming quality is much better than Netflix. Personally the few television shows I watch are on the USA network, and I've notice that episodes of some of their more popular shows are curiously missing from their video offering available on the web. So I keep the basic cable which I need anyway in order to get HBO. If Netflix isn't careful, some corporation that actually produces a lot of our media (*cough* Time Warner *cough* Comcast) may take advantage of Netflix's faux pas.
I haven't gotten an email from Netflix explaining the rate change. I guess the CEO is too busy drinking lattes to care about notifying all their customers.
BTW all the people who quote just $8 versus the price of cable isn't factoring the cost of a broadband connection. Nothing prevents an ISP from bundling their streaming service with their broadband service for less than what it would cost for broadband + Netflix. Especially since a certain ISP owns several television networks and some studios.
If enough Americans had the balls this woman's got, we might have a functional fourth amendment.
If enough American had the balls this woman's got then we would all be women.:P
I'm suspecting that this is a publicity stunt or something similar. Like I said earlier, you shouldn't be surprised that you will be screened by a TSA agent if you fly. If you are then you are living under a rock, or in the backwood state like Tennessee.
She could have easily just chose some other form of transportation. It's not like these TSA pat downs are a secret.
Personally I prefer all people regardless of age being screened. What prevents someone from the portion of the population excluded from TSA screening from being used to carry something past the screeners? Yes I know it sounds paranoid, and no I don't think using children to carry bombs has a higher risk of happening than any other method. However the TSA screeners are there for a reason, and if we start exempting people from screening due to some prudish reason then why even bother?
In other words, if it's not appropriate for children to be screened by the TSA then why should it be appropriate for them to screen the rest of us. All or none.
The problem I have with the "acting as advertiser" hypothesis is the fact that you apply to be an Amazon associate and if accepted become affiliated with Amazon.
An advertising agency wouldn't be an affiliate of Amazon. Instead they would have Amazon as a client and Amazon would have initiated the business relationship. The agency would act independently from Amazon and have many different clients and they're payment is rarely based on actual sales.
Compare that with an Amazon associate who joined an affiliate program managed by Amazon. They actively initiate the sale of an Amazon product and their pay is based on the amount of sales generated. The litmus test is who is pulling the strings.
When Amazon hires Google for banner ads they pay Google for a rate agreed in advance based on the projected number of banner ads being served. Google also offer contracts based on wether or not someone is redirected to a website. However I do not know of a case where Google's advertising division charges their clients according to the number of sales generated.
So it all boils down to who is actually doing the billing. A real ad agency will bill Amazon for the number of redirect initiated by their banner ad service. An Amazon associate gets paid by Amazon for the number of items sold through their links.
It is no different that if a magazine included a an add that they got paid for by the sale that came from the ad.
That sentence appears to mangled. I'm not aware of any magazine that base their rate on the number of sales created by an ad. All the magazine ad sales departments that I'm aware of charges a established rate depending on the size and style of that ad. The client assumes all the risk on the advertising actually producing sales.
I think we are splitting hairs here and the difference is still inconsequential.
I can go to an Amazon associate website. They'll give a glowing review of a book, widget, and whatever. They even provide videos demonstrating that product and give glowing remarks on why I should by that product. They give me a link that redirects my web browser to Amazon's page to that item and allows Amazon to finish the transaction. When a purchase is made, Amazon gives the Associate a percentage of the sale as commission. An Associate's web page could even be as simple as "Please click here to purchase this item through Amazon". Just like in brick-n-mortar stores each salesperson is different and will expend different amounts of effort to make a sale.
Also Google's Cost Per Action isn't relevant since Google *is* an independent ad agency who charges a flat fee per action. Google manages the contract with their clients. Amazon's Associate program allows individuals to become an independent sales representative for Amazon. Amazon manages the contract with their independent sales force. See the distinction? The ad agency argument falls flat because Associates aren't independent ad agencies instead they are "associates" affiliated with Amazon.
I think Amazon will have hard time trying to convince the courts that their Associate program does not make them liable to collect sales taxes. This is regardless how you want to spin the relationship here on slashdot.
Scripto v. Carson ruling establishes that independent contractors acting on behalf of an entity outside of the state in question is no different constitutionally to actual employees of that company when determining the nexus for sales or use tax collection.
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland doesn't apply here since Miller Brothers didn't accept phone or mail orders and only sold directly to customers at its Delaware store. The issue was that Maryland wanted to charge sales taxes for all goods delivered to Maryland residents. There is no direct contact with the customers.
Scripto v. Carson applies since Amazon's initial contact with the customer is through the Associate residing within the state of California. The Associate is not a mere advertiser since the Associates is paid a percentage of the sales produced through the Associate's link. Scripto v. Carson's ruling specifically addresses the issue on independent entities acting on behalf of an company outside of the state in question satisfying the nexus required to enforce the collection of sales tax.
They changed the definition of having a location in California such that if you have a 1099 contractor doing advertising for you, you have a location in California, and therefore have to collect sales tax.
They changed the definition of having a location that conforms to the SCOTUS 1960 ruling of "Scripto v. Carson".
This is unconstitutional and irrational at the same time.
See above.
If I hire an ad agency in your state, that does not mean I have moved there. It's no different than hiring an accountant, lawyer, or for that matter, a shipping company with a location in your state to define location (nexus).
This is not what Amazon did. Amazon allowed "Associates" (ie independent contractors) promote goods offered for sale by Amazon in exchange for a commission based on the amount of the sales generated by that Associate. Amazon did not hire an ad agency. It is customary for an ad agency to charge for the amount of exposure provided regardless of any sales actually generated.
There's a reason why our constitution gives sole power to regulate and levy duties (tax) interstate commerce in a *uniform way*. This prohibition is to prevent trade wars between the states and to prevent large states from using taxation to force businesses to relocate there.
The commerce clause prevent states from creating tariffs which may gave an unfair advantage to goods originating within the same state as the destination. It also prevent states from passing tariffs that generate revenue from goods that pass through the state. The commerce clause doesn't relieve the ultimate purchaser from paying sales or use taxes to their state. In fact, some states now require you to report all purchases made where no sales taxes are collected at the time of purchase. It's mostly unenforceable but nothing prevents congress from passing a law that requires online merchants to report the sale to the revenue department of the purchaser's state. I'm surprised I haven't seen such a law being proposed.
OK, so what about the poor, local businesses being put under by ______________.com?
Well, if you are a small local business, and sell mail order, you don't have to collect sales tax for shipments to anywhere other than your home state. That gives you an advantage in 49 states.
That's not relevant. What is relevant is the state's right to collect sales tax on good purchased for use within that state.
...Next, as Florida points out, appellant has 10 wholesalers, jobbers, or "salesmen" conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods. The only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order. True, the "salesmen" are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as "independent" neither results in changing his local function of solicitation nor bears upon its effectiveness in securing a substantial flow of goods into Florida....
In other words, what California and New York and all the whiners who are trying to install sales taxes on material from other states is a straightforward violation of the Constitution.
Not applicable in the case of Amazon.com
Amazon had independent entities (aka. Associates) acting on its behalf inside the state of California. With the 1960's case of Scripto Inc. v. Carson, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the differences between independent entities and actual employees was constitutionally insignificant. Therefore it is completely constitutional for the state of California to force Amazon.com to collect state taxes.
Amazon would like to reestablish their Associate program within California, but can't until some referendum is passed that gives them a free pass. However, I don't think that will work since such a referendum would violate the constitutional rights of other entities that have to collect state sales tax since it would violated the "equal protections" clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Feel free to google "Scripto v. Carson" and for your convenience I'll post the relevant part of the ruling (emphasis mine):
Florida has well stated the course of this Court's decisions governing such levies, and we need but drive home its clear understanding. There must be, as our Brother Jackson stated in Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, 344-345 (1954), "some definite link, some minimum 211*211 connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax." We believe that such a nexus is present here. First, the tax is a nondiscriminatory exaction levied for the use and enjoyment of property which has been purchased by Florida residents and which has actually entered into and become a part of the mass of property in that State. The burden of the tax is placed on the ultimate purchaser in Florida and it is he who enjoys the use of the property, regardless of its source. We note that the appellant is charged with no tax—save when, as here, he fails or refuses to collect it from the Florida customer. Next, as Florida points out, appellant has 10 wholesalers, jobbers, or "salesmen" conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods. The only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order. True, the "salesmen" are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as "independent" neither results in changing his local function of solicitation nor bears upon its effectiveness in securing a substantial flow of goods into Florida. This is evidenced by the amount assessed against appellant on the statute's 3% basis over a period of but four years. To permit such formal "contractual shifts" to make a constitutional difference would open the gates to a stampede of tax avoidance. See Thomas Reed Powell, Sales and Use Taxes: Collection from Absentee Vendors, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 1086, 1090. Moreover, we cannot see, from a constitutional standpoint, "that it was important that the agent worked for several principals." Chief Judge Learned Hand, in Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, 165 F. 2d 33, 36. The test is simply the nature and extent of the activities of the appellant 212*212 in Florida. In short, we conclude that this case is controlled by General Trading Co., supra. As was said there, "All these differentiations are without constitutional significance.Of course, no State can tax the privilege of doing interstate business. See Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250. That is within the protection of the Commerce Clause and subject to the power of Congress. On the other hand, the mere fact that property is used for interstate commerce or has come into an owner's possession as a result of interstate commerce does not diminish the protection which he may draw from a State to the upkeep of which he may be asked to bear his fair share." 322 U. S., at 338.
Slashdot Mirror
I had more sex and was way more skinnier when I did work the night shift.
Yet they affiliate themselves with Amazon and participate in a program managed by Amazon.
Nope. All I saw was an organization that maintains a distribution that is the basis for one of the fastest growing Linux distributions offer a distribution based on a kernel made by an organization that maintains one of the most used software compiler suites and userland tools. Please tell me where I should be looking. :P
Wait... it's 2011. Damn it's been a *long* day. Seemed like a year.
It's 2012. There may be something to that Mayan calendar afterall. I knew we were doomed when the Red Sox won the world series, the New Orleans Saints won the super bowl, and the Auburn University Football team won the BCS championship... War Eagle!
I know its purely anecdotal but I have Apple computers that are PowerPCs and they are still running well without problems. I have several first generation Intel models and I haven't had a problem. During that same period, I've had 1 dead Sony laptop, 3 dead Dell Desktops, and 2 operational but basically worthless Dell laptops due to their cases breaking at key mechanical points (eg hinges, latches, keyboard).
I also haven't had any problems with last year's model of the iMac 27 i7 or the previous year iMac 24 core2 duo. We pretty much went all Mac for all new purchases because of the great experience we have with Apple computers and their excellent customer support. Apple sent us a notice last year to come by the store and fix one of our white macbook chasis for free because they considered some cracking to be a manufacturing defect. I have 2 completely broken Dell laptops that are around the same age, so we didn't consider a crack on a macbook to be that big of a deal.
Ironically, the grand parent poster outed himself as clueless.
Who is this "their" you talk about? I assume you were being sarcastic since I don't have a proprietary build system on my Mac and the build system was provided by Apple. I assume you meant those Windows guys.
Not to mention they are bringing back the OS X Server with Lion as an add on.
I was thinking more in the lines of videoconferencing, mobile communications, telecommuting / remote access, collaborating software/groupware, improved GIS packages, improved laptops and portable workstations, tablets, distributed databases, outsourced office applications with IT support (aka "the cloud"), professional networking (like LinkedIn not ethernet), crowd sourcing, wireless high speed internet while traveling, wireless video conferencing, and electronic business banking solutions (aka wire transfers on demand, electronic escrow, credit card processing). These are just things off the top of my head, I'm sure one of the many "road warriors" can come up with more.
I remember when most of the stuff I mentioned where only conceivable for the wealthiest corporations, and yet now even the modest small business can take advantage of this technology. I know the progression to this current level of tech was slow in today's fast paced environment (ie "boiling the frog") but if you compare the office of 2011 with the office of 2001 the advances are startling.
So what is Cavanaugh's definition of innovation? I mean how much improvements can you make to a word processor and a spreadsheet?
What 10 year period is Kevin Cavanaugh talking about? If he honestly believes that there hasn't been any innovation in the "office space" then I can see why some are saying that IBM is becoming more irrelevant.
Agree. Too bad their timing sucks and they are increasing their combined plan fee to $16 around the same time they lose access to movies from Sony entertainment and will likely be losing Starz Online soon.
If I drop DVD (which I plan to do anyway because Red Box is better), my rate stays the same $8, but the quantity (and quality) of movies available is lower. Whereas, HBOgo which I get free in exchange for paying for my Wife's addiction to True Blood is actually pretty damn nice and the streaming quality is much better than Netflix. Personally the few television shows I watch are on the USA network, and I've notice that episodes of some of their more popular shows are curiously missing from their video offering available on the web. So I keep the basic cable which I need anyway in order to get HBO. If Netflix isn't careful, some corporation that actually produces a lot of our media (*cough* Time Warner *cough* Comcast) may take advantage of Netflix's faux pas.
I haven't gotten an email from Netflix explaining the rate change. I guess the CEO is too busy drinking lattes to care about notifying all their customers.
BTW all the people who quote just $8 versus the price of cable isn't factoring the cost of a broadband connection. Nothing prevents an ISP from bundling their streaming service with their broadband service for less than what it would cost for broadband + Netflix. Especially since a certain ISP owns several television networks and some studios.
Good luck with that. Many popular sporting events are now only on cable channels. Even "Monday Night Football" moved from ABC to ESPN.
If enough American had the balls this woman's got then we would all be women. :P
I'm suspecting that this is a publicity stunt or something similar. Like I said earlier, you shouldn't be surprised that you will be screened by a TSA agent if you fly. If you are then you are living under a rock, or in the backwood state like Tennessee.
She could have easily just chose some other form of transportation. It's not like these TSA pat downs are a secret.
Personally I prefer all people regardless of age being screened. What prevents someone from the portion of the population excluded from TSA screening from being used to carry something past the screeners? Yes I know it sounds paranoid, and no I don't think using children to carry bombs has a higher risk of happening than any other method. However the TSA screeners are there for a reason, and if we start exempting people from screening due to some prudish reason then why even bother?
In other words, if it's not appropriate for children to be screened by the TSA then why should it be appropriate for them to screen the rest of us. All or none.
Someone needs to increase the pressure to the radio waves emitted by T-Mobile. My phone doesn't work indoors. ;)
The problem I have with the "acting as advertiser" hypothesis is the fact that you apply to be an Amazon associate and if accepted become affiliated with Amazon.
An advertising agency wouldn't be an affiliate of Amazon. Instead they would have Amazon as a client and Amazon would have initiated the business relationship. The agency would act independently from Amazon and have many different clients and they're payment is rarely based on actual sales.
Compare that with an Amazon associate who joined an affiliate program managed by Amazon. They actively initiate the sale of an Amazon product and their pay is based on the amount of sales generated. The litmus test is who is pulling the strings.
When Amazon hires Google for banner ads they pay Google for a rate agreed in advance based on the projected number of banner ads being served. Google also offer contracts based on wether or not someone is redirected to a website. However I do not know of a case where Google's advertising division charges their clients according to the number of sales generated.
So it all boils down to who is actually doing the billing. A real ad agency will bill Amazon for the number of redirect initiated by their banner ad service. An Amazon associate gets paid by Amazon for the number of items sold through their links.
That sentence appears to mangled. I'm not aware of any magazine that base their rate on the number of sales created by an ad. All the magazine ad sales departments that I'm aware of charges a established rate depending on the size and style of that ad. The client assumes all the risk on the advertising actually producing sales.
I think we are splitting hairs here and the difference is still inconsequential.
I can go to an Amazon associate website. They'll give a glowing review of a book, widget, and whatever. They even provide videos demonstrating that product and give glowing remarks on why I should by that product. They give me a link that redirects my web browser to Amazon's page to that item and allows Amazon to finish the transaction. When a purchase is made, Amazon gives the Associate a percentage of the sale as commission. An Associate's web page could even be as simple as "Please click here to purchase this item through Amazon". Just like in brick-n-mortar stores each salesperson is different and will expend different amounts of effort to make a sale.
Also Google's Cost Per Action isn't relevant since Google *is* an independent ad agency who charges a flat fee per action. Google manages the contract with their clients. Amazon's Associate program allows individuals to become an independent sales representative for Amazon. Amazon manages the contract with their independent sales force. See the distinction? The ad agency argument falls flat because Associates aren't independent ad agencies instead they are "associates" affiliated with Amazon.
I think Amazon will have hard time trying to convince the courts that their Associate program does not make them liable to collect sales taxes. This is regardless how you want to spin the relationship here on slashdot.
Scripto v. Carson ruling establishes that independent contractors acting on behalf of an entity outside of the state in question is no different constitutionally to actual employees of that company when determining the nexus for sales or use tax collection.
meant to say there is no indirect contact with the customers.
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland doesn't apply here since Miller Brothers didn't accept phone or mail orders and only sold directly to customers at its Delaware store. The issue was that Maryland wanted to charge sales taxes for all goods delivered to Maryland residents. There is no direct contact with the customers.
Scripto v. Carson applies since Amazon's initial contact with the customer is through the Associate residing within the state of California. The Associate is not a mere advertiser since the Associates is paid a percentage of the sales produced through the Associate's link. Scripto v. Carson's ruling specifically addresses the issue on independent entities acting on behalf of an company outside of the state in question satisfying the nexus required to enforce the collection of sales tax.
IANAL.
They changed the definition of having a location that conforms to the SCOTUS 1960 ruling of "Scripto v. Carson".
See above.
This is not what Amazon did. Amazon allowed "Associates" (ie independent contractors) promote goods offered for sale by Amazon in exchange for a commission based on the amount of the sales generated by that Associate. Amazon did not hire an ad agency. It is customary for an ad agency to charge for the amount of exposure provided regardless of any sales actually generated.
The commerce clause prevent states from creating tariffs which may gave an unfair advantage to goods originating within the same state as the destination. It also prevent states from passing tariffs that generate revenue from goods that pass through the state. The commerce clause doesn't relieve the ultimate purchaser from paying sales or use taxes to their state. In fact, some states now require you to report all purchases made where no sales taxes are collected at the time of purchase. It's mostly unenforceable but nothing prevents congress from passing a law that requires online merchants to report the sale to the revenue department of the purchaser's state. I'm surprised I haven't seen such a law being proposed.
That's not relevant. What is relevant is the state's right to collect sales tax on good purchased for use within that state.
I refer to "Scripto v. Carson":
Google Scripto v. Carson.
Not applicable in the case of Amazon.com
Amazon had independent entities (aka. Associates) acting on its behalf inside the state of California. With the 1960's case of Scripto Inc. v. Carson, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the differences between independent entities and actual employees was constitutionally insignificant. Therefore it is completely constitutional for the state of California to force Amazon.com to collect state taxes.
Amazon would like to reestablish their Associate program within California, but can't until some referendum is passed that gives them a free pass. However, I don't think that will work since such a referendum would violate the constitutional rights of other entities that have to collect state sales tax since it would violated the "equal protections" clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Feel free to google "Scripto v. Carson" and for your convenience I'll post the relevant part of the ruling (emphasis mine):
Florida has well stated the course of this Court's decisions governing such levies, and we need but drive home its clear understanding. There must be, as our Brother Jackson stated in Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, 344-345 (1954), "some definite link, some minimum 211*211 connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax." We believe that such a nexus is present here. First, the tax is a nondiscriminatory exaction levied for the use and enjoyment of property which has been purchased by Florida residents and which has actually entered into and become a part of the mass of property in that State. The burden of the tax is placed on the ultimate purchaser in Florida and it is he who enjoys the use of the property, regardless of its source. We note that the appellant is charged with no tax—save when, as here, he fails or refuses to collect it from the Florida customer. Next, as Florida points out, appellant has 10 wholesalers, jobbers, or "salesmen" conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods. The only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order. True, the "salesmen" are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as "independent" neither results in changing his local function of solicitation nor bears upon its effectiveness in securing a substantial flow of goods into Florida. This is evidenced by the amount assessed against appellant on the statute's 3% basis over a period of but four years. To permit such formal "contractual shifts" to make a constitutional difference would open the gates to a stampede of tax avoidance. See Thomas Reed Powell, Sales and Use Taxes: Collection from Absentee Vendors, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 1086, 1090. Moreover, we cannot see, from a constitutional standpoint, "that it was important that the agent worked for several principals." Chief Judge Learned Hand, in Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, 165 F. 2d 33, 36. The test is simply the nature and extent of the activities of the appellant 212*212 in Florida. In short, we conclude that this case is controlled by General Trading Co., supra. As was said there, "All these differentiations are without constitutional significance.Of course, no State can tax the privilege of doing interstate business. See Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250. That is within the protection of the Commerce Clause and subject to the power of Congress. On the other hand, the mere fact that property is used for interstate commerce or has come into an owner's possession as a result of interstate commerce does not diminish the protection which he may draw from a State to the upkeep of which he may be asked to bear his fair share." 322 U. S., at 338.
IANAL.