Q. If my customer uses a coupon when making a purchase, do I charge sales tax on the price before or after subtracting the coupon?
A. Sales and use taxes must be calculated on the sales price net of all price reductions from coupons. Any additional value assigned by the retailer, such as to double or triple the coupon, is also excludable from the sales price. For example, if the price of the item was $5.00 and the customer presented a $.50 coupon, sales tax would apply to the net price, $4.50.
That's for Connecticut, I recently looked up the same for Texas with the same results. From my experience, having lived in 9 other states from one end of the country to the other, that's pretty much the way it works everywhere.
This is why we cant have nice things. You dont get a device you can futz with with a nice warantee.
Bullshit.
If futzing is an official part of the marketing of said device it better be warranteed. Otherwise what you are saying is the equivalent of, "cars are good for looking pretty sitting in your driveway, but if the engine fails to make yours move on its own, don't expect that to be warranteed."
Next your going to say AMD shouldnt make their high end processors the best at overclocking, then not give me a replacement when I melt mine.
Does AMD advertise the overlocking ability of said processor? If they do, then they better be prepared for the consequences of people using it they way they advertise it.
Yes, this means "they won". You have to be responsible for the bits on your computer, and you have to pay for music you listen to. Did you think this free music thing was gonna last forever?
Why not? If it costs $0 to make a copy, why shouldn't it be free to get a copy?
Oh... you think the artist has to get paid and the only way to do that is to charge for each copy.
When you go to work at the office you get paid for the time you spend working, right? But once you've worked for a whole month, you can't just quit your job and then expect to get paid over and over for that work you did during the first month can you? So tell me, why should artists or promoters or distribution companies expect to get paid over and over again for the same work if you, end every other peon can't?
1st- sometimes when a firmware flash goes bad, the hardware is DEAD. not repairable. trash.... they've closed the loophole, that undoubtedly cost them money unfairly. I applaud the thought..
If they really had a problem with too many units with bad flashes coming back, they should have redesigned the product so that you could hard-reset it back to a minimally flashable state instead of being completely locked out.
In fact, now that they have a model that is specifically marketed to users who intend to flash upgrade, leaving such a major product reliability issue unresolved probably makes the unit unfit for its intended use and thus subject to at least as many warranty issues, and probably a class-action suit if they won't service those warranty claims.
You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof.
What if your program needs to do I/O? He has to hit the kernel for that, won't that just blow any sort of guarantees for a timeline? Aren't there a bunch of locks that may or may not be locked already through any system call that will do I/O?
Here is a dumb thought... Don't click on his|her link.
Except it doesn't matter whether anyone here clicks on the link, google's pagerank system is the one "clicking on the link" - the end result being an increase in the guy's ranking in google so that people who don't even know what slashdot is will see the guy's site come up in searches for "beatles" and they will click on the link through google instead.
I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true.
1) Sue them for reverse-libel!! (lebil?) 2) ???? 3) Profit!
So remind me, why in the world would they want to do what you're asking?
Because, like any halfway-savvy government contractor, they develop the software as a work-for-hire. Thus they are already paid for their effort before the code is released. At that point they don't care who does what with the code because they got their money.
Then the next state/county that they provide machines for, they don't need to charge them for the software development - only software maintenance. Then, like all the other producers of real goods like car manufacturers, clothing manufacturers, etc, Diebold can earn their profit margin on the sale of the actual machines.
If Diebold thinks that their outmoded business model somehow trumps the right of the public to have confidence in their elections, then they can go fuck themselves while we, the public, take our business to a company that does know how to satisify its customers and still make a profit.
Your government needs to start policing the criminals that give your country a bad name. If they were to hook up with the people at http://www.419eater.com/ I'm sure they could come up with a way for the 419eater guys to trick the scammer into turning themselves in to the police there.
Regardless of the specifics, either the country must start policing itself, or you have to pull a Chalabi and convince Bush to come liberate you from the scammers instead. You probably don't want that. Though I hear that you do have a lot of oil there, being the largest oil producer in all of Africa.
Actually, your proposal should yield better quality sound than most BOSE speaker systems. What you left off is that special BOSE touch - i.e. it needs to cost 10x more than it is worth.
When some cheapskate downloads copyrighted MP3s from a P2P network, it's `copyright infringement', but when Sony uses GPL'd code it's `stealing', right?
Someone else has already posted the link to this: previous story about the same company improving gasoline engines.
What I would like to know is will this gadget have the same effect as increasing the octane rating of the gas? So, if I have a turbo-charged engine that wants the high-octane stuff, can I, at least in theory, use the cheap gas plus a little itty-bit of hydrogen and get the same effect?
It used to be that computers were expensive and people were relatively cheap. Nowadays, the reverse is generally true.
So, unless these systems have performance critical portions, like high-speed digital signal processing where every FLOP counts, it really isn't worth the extra effort to optimize your code for the platform - you'll just end up having to hand-tweak (or even worse, un-tweak) it again on the next hardware upgrade.
Firewheels is 100% correct, mod his post up. Ain't nothing special about "interactual" DVDs, they are just regular DVDs with extra useless ms-windows crap on them.
. I'd have likely ended up with several hundred dollars of fines and rubber gloves in uncomfortable places.
So, instead you bent over and took it from your insurance company which raised your rates so that you will pay them way more than you would have paid to fight the ticket in the first place.
Very commendable of you to do your bit for our corporate welfare state.
Funny how people argue that this weapon *may* damage the eyes, when the current alternative to the situations described (LOTS OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS) are pretty much guaranteed to kill.
Oh come on! Do you really think use of this weapon will be limited to just those situations? That ain't the way it has ever worked, lethal or "non-lethal." What you can count on is that sooner or later, this weapon will be used in a situation where not using it would have been the better option. Since it is perceived as "non-lethal" it makes it that much easier for someone to justify using it, even when the consequences of that use turn out to be far worse.
In summary - deviate from the standard and your support costs go up.
I was in a meeting recently regarding platform development (i.e. the company sells the entire box, hardware and software to their customers). The talk of porting the app to Linux came up and the chief honcho dismissed it as neither a benefit nor a loss.
His point was that their product requires certain OS-level customizations. They can either purchase these customizations from a proprietary-source OS vendor and pay out the wazoo for them, or they can contract for them in Linux and pay out the wazoo for support on linux. Either way, money is flying out of his wazoo.
In addition, he made the point that his company's core-competency is not in building OSes, so building and maintaining their own linux distribution is considered a high-risk/low-reward endeavour.
He had a point, and it was pretty close to this MS rep's point. In this company's case, part of moving to linux was also moving to cost-effective (i.e. cheap) commodity hardware, and away from proprietary (expensive) "big iron" unix systems. So, in his case the value is really in moving from overpriced hardware to the "sweet-spot" in the commodity hardware market. But, from this MS rep's point of view - Windows and Linux are already both in that sweet-spot, which takes that argument away from the pro-linux crowd.
So, my point here is that despite trying to define the problem in terms of "open" (which it has little to do with) the MS rep does have a reasonably valid point - customization costs money no matter how you go about it.
But, the MS rep's point starts to fall apart when you ask how manys customers actually need customizations? Since the vast majority of proprietary software is one-size-fits-all, sticking with proprietary versus Free gets you nothing special. Might as well go with a standardized linux install and worry about officialy support for an official release.
There is also a difference between the EU, where I have a right to view the data they have on me (and have it alter if necessary) and the US, where privacy is being eroded.
Don't worry, the US government is doing everything it can to make sure those pesky EU privacy regulations are eroded just as quickly too.
I'm too lazy to cite the specifics but what it is turning out to be in practice is if an EU company wants to do business with US customers or other US companies, than the USA wants the EU company to have to abide by US rules for invadability of privacy and not much stricter EU rules.
In the past, this kind of leverage has been used for actual good in a number of industries -- for example making foreign banks bring their operations into line with US standards which have tended to be some of the best in terms accountability. But, just like any situation where "the ends justify the means" those means ultimately end up being used for even worse ends.
So Yahoo probably put a a rather inane temporary entry for a competitor in one of their own products - something that hardly anyone would really notice, or care about.
Sorry, this is not news for nerds and definitely not shit that matters. More like, news for those who will never, ever have a life. The kind of bland joke you could tell your church-going, 90-year-old great-grand-mother about, that is if she actually knew what a google and a yahoo were.
If anything, it sounds like a thinly disguised advertisement for Yahoo's new map service.
They've already patented the plotline of posting their email address to a popular website with hundreds of thousands of hostile readers who then bombard said address with so much vitriol that the owner's MS Outlook client literally crashes and burns when they come into the office the next day.
Unlike with tax laws (where overcharging is a no-no),
I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. I looked into this a few years ago when a local B&M was charging tax on the full price of purchases made with coupons. It turned out that they were "wrong" to do that, they only needed to charge tax on the actual dollar amount that changed hands. But, it was still legal for them to over charge on sales tax as long as they gave it all to the state.
So, if they charge you a gynormous fee and they call it sales tax, they are legal if they pay the entire amount collected as tax to the state.
You source nothing to back up your assertion that DDT is environmentally safe, and then claim that the hundreds of millions of dollars would be better spent buying and spraying DDT instead of conducting research
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
As for referencing a newly discovered gene and holding it up as some sort of solution, you are ignoring the many more years of R&D that will be required to make use of that information. In the mean time DDT spraying saves lives today and could come close to erradication if used properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Pot, meet kettle.
http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?a=1477&q=26992
That's for Connecticut, I recently looked up the same for Texas with the same results. From my experience, having lived in 9 other states from one end of the country to the other, that's pretty much the way it works everywhere.
This is why we cant have nice things. You dont get a device you can futz with with a nice warantee.
Bullshit.
If futzing is an official part of the marketing of said device it better be warranteed. Otherwise what you are saying is the equivalent of, "cars are good for looking pretty sitting in your driveway, but if the engine fails to make yours move on its own, don't expect that to be warranteed."
Next your going to say AMD shouldnt make their high end processors the best at overclocking, then not give me a replacement when I melt mine.
Does AMD advertise the overlocking ability of said processor? If they do, then they better be prepared for the consequences of people using it they way they advertise it.
Yes, this means "they won". You have to be responsible for the bits on your computer, and you have to pay for music you listen to. Did you think this free music thing was gonna last forever?
Why not? If it costs $0 to make a copy, why shouldn't it be free to get a copy?
Oh... you think the artist has to get paid and the only way to do that is to charge for each copy.
When you go to work at the office you get paid for the time you spend working, right? But once you've worked for a whole month, you can't just quit your job and then expect to get paid over and over for that work you did during the first month can you? So tell me, why should artists or promoters or distribution companies expect to get paid over and over again for the same work if you, end every other peon can't?
1st- sometimes when a firmware flash goes bad, the hardware is DEAD. not repairable. trash. ...
they've closed the loophole, that undoubtedly cost them money unfairly. I applaud the thought..
If they really had a problem with too many units with bad flashes coming back, they should have redesigned the product so that you could hard-reset it back to a minimally flashable state instead of being completely locked out.
In fact, now that they have a model that is specifically marketed to users who intend to flash upgrade, leaving such a major product reliability issue unresolved probably makes the unit unfit for its intended use and thus subject to at least as many warranty issues, and probably a class-action suit if they won't service those warranty claims.
You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof.
What if your program needs to do I/O? He has to hit the kernel for that, won't that just blow any sort of guarantees for a timeline? Aren't there a bunch of locks that may or may not be locked already through any system call that will do I/O?
Here is a dumb thought...
Don't click on his|her link.
Except it doesn't matter whether anyone here clicks on the link, google's pagerank system is the one "clicking on the link" - the end result being an increase in the guy's ranking in google so that people who don't even know what slashdot is will see the guy's site come up in searches for "beatles" and they will click on the link through google instead.
I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true.
1) Sue them for reverse-libel!! (lebil?)
2) ????
3) Profit!
So remind me, why in the world would they want to do what you're asking?
Because, like any halfway-savvy government contractor, they develop the software as a work-for-hire. Thus they are already paid for their effort before the code is released. At that point they don't care who does what with the code because they got their money.
Then the next state/county that they provide machines for, they don't need to charge them for the software development - only software maintenance. Then, like all the other producers of real goods like car manufacturers, clothing manufacturers, etc, Diebold can earn their profit margin on the sale of the actual machines.
If Diebold thinks that their outmoded business model somehow trumps the right of the public to have confidence in their elections, then they can go fuck themselves while we, the public, take our business to a company that does know how to satisify its customers and still make a profit.
Your government needs to start policing the criminals that give your country a bad name. If they were to hook up with the people at http://www.419eater.com/ I'm sure they could come up with a way for the 419eater guys to trick the scammer into turning themselves in to the police there.
Regardless of the specifics, either the country must start policing itself, or you have to pull a Chalabi and convince Bush to come liberate you from the scammers instead. You probably don't want that. Though I hear that you do have a lot of oil there, being the largest oil producer in all of Africa.
IANABAE (I Am Not A Bose Audio Engineer),
Actually, your proposal should yield better quality sound than most BOSE speaker systems. What you left off is that special BOSE touch - i.e. it needs to cost 10x more than it is worth.
Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security, reduces the cost effectiveness of security
You sure got that right! Funny though, you don't sound like a person with a very bullshit detector.
What are the possibilities for a poor man's whole house audio system?
That would be a walkman and a pair of headphones.
When some cheapskate downloads copyrighted MP3s from a P2P network, it's `copyright infringement', but when Sony uses GPL'd code it's `stealing', right?
No it's not stealing... it's PIRACY!!!!
Someone else has already posted the link to this: previous story about the same company improving gasoline engines.
What I would like to know is will this gadget have the same effect as increasing the octane rating of the gas? So, if I have a turbo-charged engine that wants the high-octane stuff, can I, at least in theory, use the cheap gas plus a little itty-bit of hydrogen and get the same effect?
So let's do the math. 20CD * 1 million copies each * $150,000/copy = $3 trillion dollars.
What incredible irony it would be if the LAME group ended up owning Sony Corp.
Yeah, I know, not a chance in hell, but one can dream...
It used to be that computers were expensive and people were relatively cheap. Nowadays, the reverse is generally true.
So, unless these systems have performance critical portions, like high-speed digital signal processing where every FLOP counts, it really isn't worth the extra effort to optimize your code for the platform - you'll just end up having to hand-tweak (or even worse, un-tweak) it again on the next hardware upgrade.
Firewheels is 100% correct, mod his post up. Ain't nothing special about "interactual" DVDs, they are just regular DVDs with extra useless ms-windows crap on them.
. I'd have likely ended up with several hundred dollars of fines and rubber gloves in uncomfortable places.
So, instead you bent over and took it from your insurance company which raised your rates so that you will pay them way more than you would have paid to fight the ticket in the first place.
Very commendable of you to do your bit for our corporate welfare state.
Funny how people argue that this weapon *may* damage the eyes, when the current alternative to the situations described (LOTS OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS) are pretty much guaranteed to kill.
Oh come on! Do you really think use of this weapon will be limited to just those situations? That ain't the way it has ever worked, lethal or "non-lethal." What you can count on is that sooner or later, this weapon will be used in a situation where not using it would have been the better option. Since it is perceived as "non-lethal" it makes it that much easier for someone to justify using it, even when the consequences of that use turn out to be far worse.
In summary - deviate from the standard and your support costs go up.
I was in a meeting recently regarding platform development (i.e. the company sells the entire box, hardware and software to their customers). The talk of porting the app to Linux came up and the chief honcho dismissed it as neither a benefit nor a loss.
His point was that their product requires certain OS-level customizations. They can either purchase these customizations from a proprietary-source OS vendor and pay out the wazoo for them, or they can contract for them in Linux and pay out the wazoo for support on linux. Either way, money is flying out of his wazoo.
In addition, he made the point that his company's core-competency is not in building OSes, so building and maintaining their own linux distribution is considered a high-risk/low-reward endeavour.
He had a point, and it was pretty close to this MS rep's point. In this company's case, part of moving to linux was also moving to cost-effective (i.e. cheap) commodity hardware, and away from proprietary (expensive) "big iron" unix systems. So, in his case the value is really in moving from overpriced hardware to the "sweet-spot" in the commodity hardware market. But, from this MS rep's point of view - Windows and Linux are already both in that sweet-spot, which takes that argument away from the pro-linux crowd.
So, my point here is that despite trying to define the problem in terms of "open" (which it has little to do with) the MS rep does have a reasonably valid point - customization costs money no matter how you go about it.
But, the MS rep's point starts to fall apart when you ask how manys customers actually need customizations? Since the vast majority of proprietary software is one-size-fits-all, sticking with proprietary versus Free gets you nothing special. Might as well go with a standardized linux install and worry about officialy support for an official release.
There is also a difference between the EU, where I have a right to view the data they have on me (and have it alter if necessary) and the US, where privacy is being eroded.
Don't worry, the US government is doing everything it can to make sure those pesky EU privacy regulations are eroded just as quickly too.
I'm too lazy to cite the specifics but what it is turning out to be in practice is if an EU company wants to do business with US customers or other US companies, than the USA wants the EU company to have to abide by US rules for invadability of privacy and not much stricter EU rules.
In the past, this kind of leverage has been used for actual good in a number of industries -- for example making foreign banks bring their operations into line with US standards which have tended to be some of the best in terms accountability. But, just like any situation where "the ends justify the means" those means ultimately end up being used for even worse ends.
So Yahoo probably put a a rather inane temporary entry for a competitor in one of their own products - something that hardly anyone would really notice, or care about.
Sorry, this is not news for nerds and definitely not shit that matters. More like, news for those who will never, ever have a life. The kind of bland joke you could tell your church-going, 90-year-old great-grand-mother about, that is if she actually knew what a google and a yahoo were.
If anything, it sounds like a thinly disguised advertisement for Yahoo's new map service.
Don't even think of flaming them...
They've already patented the plotline of posting their email address to a popular website with hundreds of thousands of hostile readers who then bombard said address with so much vitriol that the owner's MS Outlook client literally crashes and burns when they come into the office the next day.
Unlike with tax laws (where overcharging is a no-no),
I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. I looked into this a few years ago when a local B&M was charging tax on the full price of purchases made with coupons. It turned out that they were "wrong" to do that, they only needed to charge tax on the actual dollar amount that changed hands. But, it was still legal for them to over charge on sales tax as long as they gave it all to the state.
So, if they charge you a gynormous fee and they call it sales tax, they are legal if they pay the entire amount collected as tax to the state.
You source nothing to back up your assertion that DDT is environmentally safe, and then claim that the hundreds of millions of dollars would be better spent buying and spraying DDT instead of conducting research
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
Over 400 doctors agree: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
As for referencing a newly discovered gene and holding it up as some sort of solution, you are ignoring the many more years of R&D that will be required to make use of that information. In the mean time DDT spraying saves lives today and could come close to erradication if used properly.