Yeah, I don't get it. It's a two ton vehicle someone is operating. I don't get how anyone can consider it safe to do other things while operating a two-ton "death machine". Distractions should be kept to a minimum.
It just seems idiotic. Even if they factor in all variables to determine whether someone is obese, it still seems like a bad idea.
1. Fining companies for having "fat" employees may very well encourage employers to not hire them. Why hire someone fat when you can hire someone skinny who can do just as good of a job, and save you from being fined?
2. This ignores the problem of why people are fat in the first place. If it is true that the introduction of fast food into Japanese society is the cause, then why not fine fast food restaurants if they don't meet health standards? Well, not a fine per se, but heavily tax it. (Just like how we tax cigarettes to discourage their use.)
Instead of making math exams easier, they should focus on building a strong foundation. How many schools try to get through a certain number of chapters by year's end? They should focus on quality work, not quantity.
So instead of doing like 12 chapters in a year, do like 9, but make sure those students have it crammed into their heads on how to do the material in those 9 chapters. A strong foundation in high school will prove useful when one continues on in the subject in college.
That is so true. If someone cannot see the TV show, they never see the commercials. At least if they record it, there is still the chance they will watch the commercials instead of fast-forwarding through them.
Here is an idea. If fast-forwarding through commercials is such a problem, they could just implement banner ads while fast-forwarding. Just like there is closed captioning carried with the signal, they could create a small still-framed banner to display when fast-forward is in effect, with respect to the commercial being fast-forwarded through.
I think pay-per-view is the only issue, since someone is paying to view that once (or for 24 hours or so). Some could argue that you could simply record it, watch it once, then delete/remove it, but that becomes complicated.
While Australia has 6 states and 3 territories, America has 50 states. Not all states have sales tax, and the rates can vary quite a bit.
First of all, I'd imagine it would be tricky to get all 50 states to agree to this.
I've been trying to figure out a way to word this. Let me simply put it this way. Here is the idea...
Only applies to online retailers. If something is done via catalog, or any other method, this doesn't apply.
The online retailer must not have a headquarters in the state to which it is being shipped. (Do not confuse a warehouse with a headquarters. A headquarters is like Amazon.com have a place in Washington state, or Microsoft having a campus in Florida if I am not mistaken.)
The rate would be equal to the following: The average of the lowest and highest sales tax rate applicable to out-of-state would-be sales.
Out-of-state: Since prepared foods, car rentals, etc. might have a higher rate, but can't possibly be applied to out-of-state sales.
The online retailer would then apply this rate to the purchase (the final sale price, including shipping), then remit it to the individual state's department of revenue. The dept. of revenue would then by some formula of their own remit it to the localities.
States' rights is an issue in America. Not all states have sales tax, and the sales tax can be complex.
Regardless of whether a business has to collect the sales tax, it is nonetheless complex. The taxing districts and whatnot. What is and isn't taxable.
I feel Congress needs to step in and make a law permitting retailers to collect a differing tax. An amendment might be needed, but here is the idea anyways...
The law would permit (online) retailers to collect a sales tax for an item being shipped to a given state, at the highest sales-tax rate the shipping-to state has. So if the state's highest sales tax is at 11%, then 11% would be collected from the retailer. Then the tax would be remitted to the shipping-to state's department of revenue. The department of revenue, by some formula, would then remit this specific revenue back to the localities. (Perhaps the formula would be based on in-state commerce. Like how much localities tend to get in sales tax revenue from in-state sales only. So a given taxing locale gets like 0.0012% perhaps of this revenue, if that is the amount they get with in-state sales tax revenue by the natural method.)
The state, in which the product originated (or where the business is headquartered), would want to collect sales tax.
The state, in which the buyer is located, would want to collect sales tax on the item shipped to one of their residents.
Ideally, I feel property taxes should deal with the origination, whereas sales tax should deal with the destination of a product.
Also, in some states, if a buyer purchases something, and no sales tax is collected, sales tax is still due, and the buyer must file taxes with their own state department of revenue.
Also, some states have laws where if someone goes out of state, buys a product, and brings it back within so many days (if I am not mistaken), sales tax is due on the difference paid. For example, if 8% were paid in another state, and the buyer brings it back to their home state (where tax is 10%), then 2% tax is due on the item, and the buyer must pay it to their home state's department of revenue.
As for foreign countries, well, there isn't anything we can do, as they are out of America's jurisdiction. Outsourcing is a problem, but there isn't much we can do about it other than perhaps tariffs on items being shipped to Americans. (Perhaps a general 5% tariff on non-food items, to be collected, then redistributed to the states based on their total instate tax revenue collections (just used for the formula only).)
I am sleepy right now, and my grammar and thought processes may be way off. Sorry for that.
Congress needs to act, since this is an interstate issue.
I don't think New York has the authority to do this. But I sure would like to see the supreme Court act.
One problem with sales tax is the complexity of the code. What states need to do is to create an out-of-state seller tax rate, which retailers could voluntarily choose to pay (instead of trying to figure out the specific taxing locale). It might be equal to the highest taxing rate in the state, and would be paid to the state with no locale attached to the revenue sent there. Then the state would divide the revenue up amongst their localities based on some sort of formula (perhaps based on in-state sales, for example, for percentages).
But if one's browser is banned from getting into one's account on PayPal, will you be able to call up PayPal to have one's funds transferred someplace else?
Who are they to decide what is and isn't safe? They're not a bank, so I don't think they necessarily have any liability if one of their customers loses money, correct? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Is this even legal? Seriously. If someone has money in PayPal, and if that same someone happens to be using a browser that is deemed "unsafe" and is sequentially banned, isn't that like PayPal holding the money hostage? What happens to those who refuse to "upgrade" in order to access their account?
Maybe instead of doing stupid stuff like this, which breeds a false sense of security among some less-smart users of PayPal, they should think of new and innovative ways to prevent unauthorized access to accounts. (I don't care to list my ideas right now.)
1. Create a national database of taxing districts associated with their address.
2. Permit small businesses to remit tax revenue annually, instead of monthly or quarterly. This should help simplify the process.
3. Allow small businesses to deduct up to a certain amount per year from the tax they collect. (Like deducting $500 or 10%, whichever is less, from tax collected. E.g. if $5002 is collected in tax revenue, then $4502 need be remitted.)
4. Exempt small businesses from collecting out-of-state sales tax, if and only if, their gross annual sales (in and out) yield less than a certain amount per year. Perhaps if their gross annual sales is less than $50,000 per year. (So eBay salers and whatnot would be in the safe zone probably.)
5. If no nexus exists at the buyer's shipping destination, then perhaps use the state's highest sales tax rate to determine the tax rate. (So, if the highest tax rate is like 9% in a given state, in which no nexus exists for the business to ship to, then the business collects a 9% sales tax on the item, and remits it to the state, and the state will figure out a way to properly distribute it to their localities so the seller doesn't have to figure out the taxing rates or localities.)
This is a problem, what New York is doing. I don't think they have the legal authority to do this. I'd guess this could potentially reach SCOTUS.
From what I understand, a commission is like paying someone for hawking their product. But the key difference is this. Unlike a sales person earning a commission for selling cars at a car lot, these people who are earning a commission aren't located at/employed by Amazon.com.
I think affiliates are more like people who would be paid to wear t-shirts advertising someone's artwork, but instead of getting paid an amount to wear the t-shirt, they are getting a portion of the money generated from those who "mention" they are buying because they saw the t-shirt.
What happens when someone skips the affiliated link and buys direct from Amazon.com?
At the very least, perhaps Amazon.com should collect sales tax based on the proceeding money going to said affiliate, if said affiliate is indeed located within New York. Of course, that would be incredibly minor, and not worth it.
What we need is to get retailers to agree to collect sales tax when they don't have to, out of the sure moralness of it all. I, for one, pay my state's sales tax when I purchase items from a retailer, who has no physical presense here. Although I'm sure my government would never find out if I never were to pay said tax, given these are minor purchases.
I don't know the details of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. I don't know if it solves the issue of some/all states have complex sales tax codes, given that even if we always use shipping destination, there are many local sales tax locations.
I feel we need to consider making a national sales-tax database, accessible via the Internet, in which the shipping location could be entered and the sales tax could be determined, along with the address in which to send the tax to be remitted. Ideally, a business should have no problem figuring out how much to tax, in doing such, all they need to do is record the amount of tax collected, tie it to a given location, and send it to the state's department of revenue.
Things we might want to consider is changing the law so businesses don't have to send in sales tax but just once a year. Some states require the tax to be remitted monthly, and that may prove to be a problem for small businesses.
1. How do they know whether or not one's computer had an AV, anti-spyware, and firewall software installed at the time it was supposedly compromised? (Privacy issue.)
2. Bank customers do have some responsibility in security. Analogy: A homeowner has no locks, leaves door unlocked all day long, then tries getting his or her insurance company to pay out when he or she is ripped off.
3. AV, anti-spyware, and firewall. All three must be done? I think most people are familiar with the AV and firewalls, but how many know about anti-spyware software? (I believe Lavasoft's AdAware is one program.) What they should do is say that the person must make a reasonable attempt at securing their computer. (This could include having a separate computer used solely for banking, and nothing else.)
4. A thought just crossed my mind. Will they deny a claim if someone just happens to have an unsecured computer, even if the computer never was used for banking?
I think you are so correct. I hope your post gets modded up. There is nothing wrong with notes. But when it comes to profiting off them, that is another thing altogether.
Could we by analogy compare this to paying a movie-goer to take notes during the movie, and provide a very detailed summary to a company planning on selling said summary?
There might not be enough housing on campus for students. The same can be said for off campus in close range.
Raising the rates for rent off campus will hurt students and non-students. Non-students are going to be pushed into paying more to live in an area that happens to be near a college. Students might not be able to afford it, and may have to move back on campus, which leads to the problem of available on campus housing.
More importantly, students will be reading this article, and if it is true that it won't be a requirement, the school will find out. Even if they don't, they aren't going to go through the hassle of changing their network to abide by something this stupid.
Want to solve the problem of piracy? There is a simple solution. Sell it for cheaper.
So you justify a company restricting their site to users who use their products?
Here is an idea. What if gas station owners designed their pumps so only cars they approve of (they have a stake in) can fill up with what would be newly designed nozzles?
Slashdot Mirror
What is this law then? Is it an all-out ban? Or does it make it illegal IF, and ONLY IF, the airline makes the ban in the first place?
Instead of a legalized ban, why don't airlines make their own rules permitting cell phone use?
Yeah, I don't get it. It's a two ton vehicle someone is operating. I don't get how anyone can consider it safe to do other things while operating a two-ton "death machine". Distractions should be kept to a minimum.
It just seems idiotic. Even if they factor in all variables to determine whether someone is obese, it still seems like a bad idea.
1. Fining companies for having "fat" employees may very well encourage employers to not hire them. Why hire someone fat when you can hire someone skinny who can do just as good of a job, and save you from being fined?
2. This ignores the problem of why people are fat in the first place. If it is true that the introduction of fast food into Japanese society is the cause, then why not fine fast food restaurants if they don't meet health standards? Well, not a fine per se, but heavily tax it. (Just like how we tax cigarettes to discourage their use.)
Instead of making math exams easier, they should focus on building a strong foundation. How many schools try to get through a certain number of chapters by year's end? They should focus on quality work, not quantity.
So instead of doing like 12 chapters in a year, do like 9, but make sure those students have it crammed into their heads on how to do the material in those 9 chapters. A strong foundation in high school will prove useful when one continues on in the subject in college.
that microwaving your tickets might not be so wise of an idea.
That is so true. If someone cannot see the TV show, they never see the commercials. At least if they record it, there is still the chance they will watch the commercials instead of fast-forwarding through them.
Here is an idea. If fast-forwarding through commercials is such a problem, they could just implement banner ads while fast-forwarding. Just like there is closed captioning carried with the signal, they could create a small still-framed banner to display when fast-forward is in effect, with respect to the commercial being fast-forwarded through.
I think pay-per-view is the only issue, since someone is paying to view that once (or for 24 hours or so). Some could argue that you could simply record it, watch it once, then delete/remove it, but that becomes complicated.
the major benefit of DVRs was being able to record sans tape.
Is that below or above minimum wage for where they are to conduct the study? 720 hours per month, more or less.
While Australia has 6 states and 3 territories, America has 50 states. Not all states have sales tax, and the rates can vary quite a bit.
First of all, I'd imagine it would be tricky to get all 50 states to agree to this.
I've been trying to figure out a way to word this. Let me simply put it this way. Here is the idea...
Only applies to online retailers. If something is done via catalog, or any other method, this doesn't apply.
The online retailer must not have a headquarters in the state to which it is being shipped. (Do not confuse a warehouse with a headquarters. A headquarters is like Amazon.com have a place in Washington state, or Microsoft having a campus in Florida if I am not mistaken.)
The rate would be equal to the following: The average of the lowest and highest sales tax rate applicable to out-of-state would-be sales.
Out-of-state: Since prepared foods, car rentals, etc. might have a higher rate, but can't possibly be applied to out-of-state sales.
The online retailer would then apply this rate to the purchase (the final sale price, including shipping), then remit it to the individual state's department of revenue. The dept. of revenue would then by some formula of their own remit it to the localities.
States' rights is an issue in America. Not all states have sales tax, and the sales tax can be complex.
Regardless of whether a business has to collect the sales tax, it is nonetheless complex. The taxing districts and whatnot. What is and isn't taxable.
I feel Congress needs to step in and make a law permitting retailers to collect a differing tax. An amendment might be needed, but here is the idea anyways...
The law would permit (online) retailers to collect a sales tax for an item being shipped to a given state, at the highest sales-tax rate the shipping-to state has. So if the state's highest sales tax is at 11%, then 11% would be collected from the retailer. Then the tax would be remitted to the shipping-to state's department of revenue. The department of revenue, by some formula, would then remit this specific revenue back to the localities. (Perhaps the formula would be based on in-state commerce. Like how much localities tend to get in sales tax revenue from in-state sales only. So a given taxing locale gets like 0.0012% perhaps of this revenue, if that is the amount they get with in-state sales tax revenue by the natural method.)
That would still create problems.
The state, in which the product originated (or where the business is headquartered), would want to collect sales tax.
The state, in which the buyer is located, would want to collect sales tax on the item shipped to one of their residents.
Ideally, I feel property taxes should deal with the origination, whereas sales tax should deal with the destination of a product.
Also, in some states, if a buyer purchases something, and no sales tax is collected, sales tax is still due, and the buyer must file taxes with their own state department of revenue.
Also, some states have laws where if someone goes out of state, buys a product, and brings it back within so many days (if I am not mistaken), sales tax is due on the difference paid. For example, if 8% were paid in another state, and the buyer brings it back to their home state (where tax is 10%), then 2% tax is due on the item, and the buyer must pay it to their home state's department of revenue.
As for foreign countries, well, there isn't anything we can do, as they are out of America's jurisdiction. Outsourcing is a problem, but there isn't much we can do about it other than perhaps tariffs on items being shipped to Americans. (Perhaps a general 5% tariff on non-food items, to be collected, then redistributed to the states based on their total instate tax revenue collections (just used for the formula only).)
I am sleepy right now, and my grammar and thought processes may be way off. Sorry for that.
Congress needs to act, since this is an interstate issue.
I don't think New York has the authority to do this. But I sure would like to see the supreme Court act.
One problem with sales tax is the complexity of the code. What states need to do is to create an out-of-state seller tax rate, which retailers could voluntarily choose to pay (instead of trying to figure out the specific taxing locale). It might be equal to the highest taxing rate in the state, and would be paid to the state with no locale attached to the revenue sent there. Then the state would divide the revenue up amongst their localities based on some sort of formula (perhaps based on in-state sales, for example, for percentages).
They're just a bank in Europe though, correct? They're not considered a bank in America, are they?
But if one's browser is banned from getting into one's account on PayPal, will you be able to call up PayPal to have one's funds transferred someplace else?
Who are they to decide what is and isn't safe? They're not a bank, so I don't think they necessarily have any liability if one of their customers loses money, correct? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Is this even legal? Seriously. If someone has money in PayPal, and if that same someone happens to be using a browser that is deemed "unsafe" and is sequentially banned, isn't that like PayPal holding the money hostage? What happens to those who refuse to "upgrade" in order to access their account?
Maybe instead of doing stupid stuff like this, which breeds a false sense of security among some less-smart users of PayPal, they should think of new and innovative ways to prevent unauthorized access to accounts. (I don't care to list my ideas right now.)
Wouldn't it be smarter to just block the ads instead? To prevent such cookies from touching one's computer?
Here is what I think should be done:
1. Create a national database of taxing districts associated with their address.
2. Permit small businesses to remit tax revenue annually, instead of monthly or quarterly. This should help simplify the process.
3. Allow small businesses to deduct up to a certain amount per year from the tax they collect. (Like deducting $500 or 10%, whichever is less, from tax collected. E.g. if $5002 is collected in tax revenue, then $4502 need be remitted.)
4. Exempt small businesses from collecting out-of-state sales tax, if and only if, their gross annual sales (in and out) yield less than a certain amount per year. Perhaps if their gross annual sales is less than $50,000 per year. (So eBay salers and whatnot would be in the safe zone probably.)
5. If no nexus exists at the buyer's shipping destination, then perhaps use the state's highest sales tax rate to determine the tax rate. (So, if the highest tax rate is like 9% in a given state, in which no nexus exists for the business to ship to, then the business collects a 9% sales tax on the item, and remits it to the state, and the state will figure out a way to properly distribute it to their localities so the seller doesn't have to figure out the taxing rates or localities.)
(I sure hope I understand this.)
This is a problem, what New York is doing. I don't think they have the legal authority to do this. I'd guess this could potentially reach SCOTUS.
From what I understand, a commission is like paying someone for hawking their product. But the key difference is this. Unlike a sales person earning a commission for selling cars at a car lot, these people who are earning a commission aren't located at/employed by Amazon.com.
I think affiliates are more like people who would be paid to wear t-shirts advertising someone's artwork, but instead of getting paid an amount to wear the t-shirt, they are getting a portion of the money generated from those who "mention" they are buying because they saw the t-shirt.
What happens when someone skips the affiliated link and buys direct from Amazon.com?
At the very least, perhaps Amazon.com should collect sales tax based on the proceeding money going to said affiliate, if said affiliate is indeed located within New York. Of course, that would be incredibly minor, and not worth it.
What we need is to get retailers to agree to collect sales tax when they don't have to, out of the sure moralness of it all. I, for one, pay my state's sales tax when I purchase items from a retailer, who has no physical presense here. Although I'm sure my government would never find out if I never were to pay said tax, given these are minor purchases.
I don't know the details of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. I don't know if it solves the issue of some/all states have complex sales tax codes, given that even if we always use shipping destination, there are many local sales tax locations.
I feel we need to consider making a national sales-tax database, accessible via the Internet, in which the shipping location could be entered and the sales tax could be determined, along with the address in which to send the tax to be remitted. Ideally, a business should have no problem figuring out how much to tax, in doing such, all they need to do is record the amount of tax collected, tie it to a given location, and send it to the state's department of revenue.
Things we might want to consider is changing the law so businesses don't have to send in sales tax but just once a year. Some states require the tax to be remitted monthly, and that may prove to be a problem for small businesses.
Sorry, my mistake. I think I meant to say, "has no locks, and leaves door open all day long", or something like that. The key thing is, "no locks".
The banks really need to make sure their customers know what they require of them.
1. How do they know whether or not one's computer had an AV, anti-spyware, and firewall software installed at the time it was supposedly compromised? (Privacy issue.)
2. Bank customers do have some responsibility in security. Analogy: A homeowner has no locks, leaves door unlocked all day long, then tries getting his or her insurance company to pay out when he or she is ripped off.
3. AV, anti-spyware, and firewall. All three must be done? I think most people are familiar with the AV and firewalls, but how many know about anti-spyware software? (I believe Lavasoft's AdAware is one program.) What they should do is say that the person must make a reasonable attempt at securing their computer. (This could include having a separate computer used solely for banking, and nothing else.)
4. A thought just crossed my mind. Will they deny a claim if someone just happens to have an unsecured computer, even if the computer never was used for banking?
I think you are so correct. I hope your post gets modded up. There is nothing wrong with notes. But when it comes to profiting off them, that is another thing altogether.
Could we by analogy compare this to paying a movie-goer to take notes during the movie, and provide a very detailed summary to a company planning on selling said summary?
I agree. I think copyright should be split, for this type of stuff.
Commercial use: 50 years
Personal use: 10 years
A few things about this.
There might not be enough housing on campus for students. The same can be said for off campus in close range.
Raising the rates for rent off campus will hurt students and non-students. Non-students are going to be pushed into paying more to live in an area that happens to be near a college. Students might not be able to afford it, and may have to move back on campus, which leads to the problem of available on campus housing.
More importantly, students will be reading this article, and if it is true that it won't be a requirement, the school will find out. Even if they don't, they aren't going to go through the hassle of changing their network to abide by something this stupid.
Want to solve the problem of piracy? There is a simple solution. Sell it for cheaper.
So you justify a company restricting their site to users who use their products?
Here is an idea. What if gas station owners designed their pumps so only cars they approve of (they have a stake in) can fill up with what would be newly designed nozzles?