Sorry, maybe I don't understand what is going on exactly.
When the government takes properties, they offer to buy it, right?
But I was saying that under no circumstance should someone be forced to give up their property (for compensation or not) if that property is completely and absolutely residential.
So in your hypothetical, there is a valley which the government wants to build a dam in. But 12 people live in the valley who would have to sell. Do those 12 people want to sell or keep living there? Cause if they want to keep their houses, even if it's just one of them, they shouldn't be forced to sell.
Isn't Scalia the one who was also endorsing orgies? Maybe it's time we need a new set of nine entirely.
And to bring something up, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" I think in another document.
It's one thing to take away commercial land from someone, but it's entirely different to take away residential land. I can understand the government buying someone's commercial land against their will at 100%, or maybe 110% cost, but under no circumstances should they be permitted to buy a piece of land that is 100% residential.
Also, different locations do sales tax differently. For example, in certain locations, if someone buys something from a given store in person, they may or may not pay sales tax depending on where the buyer lives. I think that's how it's done in Vancouver, Washington with some Oregonians.
I agree that the best way would be to do it by delivery address. Here's my logic...
Doing sales tax by business location is a bad idea I would believe. Although logic can state that it pays for the services located in the business's physical location, it's really the people that count I'm told. Businesses aren't people. But then again, there's people operating the businesses. Best solution would be to do a commercial property tax, whereas residential property tax is another subject entirely.
Sales tax should be done on the delivery address. Let say a person orders goods from an online business. That person is located physically in state A. That business has it's webservers located in multiple states all connected, and has warehouses located in multiple places. Of course, you could always do it by warehouse location, but let us not. Let say that the shipping location is different than the person's location at the time of transaction. Shipping location should count. It is by far the easiest way to do things.
If we do sales tax by the location of the business, what happens when the business has multiple locations? What if I order from an online store, which has multiple locations where it's running it's webserver as a whole, and multiple warehouses?
If we do sales tax by the physical location of the buyer at the time of transaction or perhaps the shipping address, does that sales tax go to that relative state? If so, how does the business location get it's tax revenue for itself? But then again, that leads to the first problem I mentioned above.
I think the best solution would be to do sales tax by the shipping address or physical buyer's location, and sending revenue to that state government. Additionally, there can always be property tax on the business property. Residential property is another matter I won't go into.
I think you replied to the wrong post or something. Not sure how that happened. I know slashdot has been having a lot of problems in the past couple days.
Some loyal customers get discounts, but consider this for a moment.
You're going to buy cable television. They offer it to you for $29.95 per month or whatever, then they spike the price. This would be the exact opposite of the whole loyal customer thing, right?
We should assume both sides will do as much as possible to keep passwords safe. The client will make sure his or her machine isn't compromised. The server will have safeguards to prevent password attacks and such.
But as for secret questions, well, even with safeguards in place, someone might be able to find out what the answer is to the secret question. A celebrity's life is out in the open, and with background checks, their life is an open book. - Pet names, teacher names, favorite type of stuff, etc., can easily be found out on a celebrity. And I am really stumped on what could be a good secret question. - I personally believe it's a bad idea to use one's social security number or credit card number as a secret question. It's just one of those things that doesn't seem safe for a variery of reasons.
Hypothetically speaking, is there anything Paris Hilton would be able to have as a secret question that no one can find out? And by this, I mean can't find out by any means possible, i.e. background checks, Google searches, private investigator, etc.
Then it probably isn't a good idea to use "What was my first grade teacher's name?" as a secret question.
Also, secret questions should be entirely optional. Nothing wrong with the concept of having a randomly created new password sent to an alternative e-mail address.
One: Uou are correct. My idea doesn't help that situation. But my idea would help another problem that was brought up.
Two: Most people tend to have one teacher as their first grade teacher, and still we tend to go by the last name. So if someone were to use that, they'd most likely use just the last name. And if someone can't remember the secret answers to their secret questions four months after the fact, there are probably worse problems going on.
Personally, I think ICQ should delete accounts that reach like a 7 year mark, but they shouldn't allow those numbers to be reregistered. I mean, some people might have those numbers on their contact lists still. But what happens if someone comes back 7 years later to find their account deleted? Tough, 7 years is a long time to let that happen.
Why am I saying this? Simply because some people may have forgotten their password to their ICQ account and their profile has personal information they want removed. Or perhaps profiles should become invisible after a 4-7 year mark of being dormant.
There is no such thing as a totally secret-secret question. Those would be considered passwords. Personally, there is nothing I can really think of that someone else doesn't know somehow.
I meant all four secret questions need to have all of them answered correctly to go on. Meaning if you get one right, and the other three wrong, it will still say wrong. It won't give any hint that one of those were right. Kind of like how Yahoo! doesn't tell you that part of it is right, when filling our the birthdate, location, and such.
Yes, the Hotmail (not @msn.com) usernames that expire are reusable.
What is it right now? 30 days for e-mail to be deleted? 45 days for the account to expire completely so it can be reregistered? Am I correct on this?
I can agree with e-mail being deleted from the account after a certain period, since it is their space being used up.
I cannot agree with the account expiring in such a short period. Doesn't it take like 7 years for someone to be declared legally dead? I personally would like to see Hotmail accounts take 7 years to totally expire. At minimum, 1-4 years to totally expire. At maximum, 10 years to totally expire. But at some point, they do need to expire so someone else can register them. It prevents good-name hoarding, and what if someone only temporarily registered an e-mail address to quickly register for something and won't ever need to use it again?
While we're on the topic of security, here is another bad problem.
When you register for an account at a website, and that account doesn't ever expire, yet your e-mail address is one that expires if you don't check it, this creates a problem, especially if you have site updates.
Hypothetically, someone registers an account at a travel website. Their e-mail address is used, and it doesn't matter if it is used for a username or not. This account at the travel website never expires, even if you never go back to it again. Yet the company will keep sending you updates concerning their business. Well, if you let your e-mail address expire, and someone else registers it later on, they won't have trouble doing a password request which will allow them into your account, which will contain your personal information.
Slashdot Mirror
they have to remove your fingernails as they are evidence.
Sorry, maybe I don't understand what is going on exactly.
When the government takes properties, they offer to buy it, right?
But I was saying that under no circumstance should someone be forced to give up their property (for compensation or not) if that property is completely and absolutely residential.
I didn't mention tax revenue.
So in your hypothetical, there is a valley which the government wants to build a dam in. But 12 people live in the valley who would have to sell. Do those 12 people want to sell or keep living there? Cause if they want to keep their houses, even if it's just one of them, they shouldn't be forced to sell.
I think it was John Locke and one of his documents.
Isn't Scalia the one who was also endorsing orgies? Maybe it's time we need a new set of nine entirely.
And to bring something up, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" I think in another document.
It's one thing to take away commercial land from someone, but it's entirely different to take away residential land. I can understand the government buying someone's commercial land against their will at 100%, or maybe 110% cost, but under no circumstances should they be permitted to buy a piece of land that is 100% residential.
If you did manage to time travel back in time, did the universe you left still even exist?
Sure, the universe you left still would exist in your mind, but does it even exist in reality?
Isn't it possible to watermark one's digital picture with something to show copyright ownership? Or is this type of idea flawed?
This isn't how sales tax is done.
Notice I said "If".
Also, different locations do sales tax differently. For example, in certain locations, if someone buys something from a given store in person, they may or may not pay sales tax depending on where the buyer lives. I think that's how it's done in Vancouver, Washington with some Oregonians.
I agree that the best way would be to do it by delivery address. Here's my logic...
Doing sales tax by business location is a bad idea I would believe. Although logic can state that it pays for the services located in the business's physical location, it's really the people that count I'm told. Businesses aren't people. But then again, there's people operating the businesses. Best solution would be to do a commercial property tax, whereas residential property tax is another subject entirely.
Sales tax should be done on the delivery address. Let say a person orders goods from an online business. That person is located physically in state A. That business has it's webservers located in multiple states all connected, and has warehouses located in multiple places. Of course, you could always do it by warehouse location, but let us not. Let say that the shipping location is different than the person's location at the time of transaction. Shipping location should count. It is by far the easiest way to do things.
If we do sales tax by the location of the business, what happens when the business has multiple locations? What if I order from an online store, which has multiple locations where it's running it's webserver as a whole, and multiple warehouses?
If we do sales tax by the physical location of the buyer at the time of transaction or perhaps the shipping address, does that sales tax go to that relative state? If so, how does the business location get it's tax revenue for itself? But then again, that leads to the first problem I mentioned above.
I think the best solution would be to do sales tax by the shipping address or physical buyer's location, and sending revenue to that state government. Additionally, there can always be property tax on the business property. Residential property is another matter I won't go into.
I think you replied to the wrong post or something. Not sure how that happened. I know slashdot has been having a lot of problems in the past couple days.
Some loyal customers get discounts, but consider this for a moment.
You're going to buy cable television. They offer it to you for $29.95 per month or whatever, then they spike the price. This would be the exact opposite of the whole loyal customer thing, right?
I see nothing wrong with the concept of using biometrics for password requests, as long as it's optional.
I am kind of curious about the durability.
Could it withstand being put into a washing machine with the hottest water possible. First you'll want to turn up your water heater.
Try microwaving your clothes. That should definately get the electronics. (I don't recommend this, as it's probably very dangerous.)
Or just wrap your body in tin foil. That might cause some interference.
We should assume both sides will do as much as possible to keep passwords safe. The client will make sure his or her machine isn't compromised. The server will have safeguards to prevent password attacks and such.
But as for secret questions, well, even with safeguards in place, someone might be able to find out what the answer is to the secret question. A celebrity's life is out in the open, and with background checks, their life is an open book.
-
Pet names, teacher names, favorite type of stuff, etc., can easily be found out on a celebrity. And I am really stumped on what could be a good secret question.
-
I personally believe it's a bad idea to use one's social security number or credit card number as a secret question. It's just one of those things that doesn't seem safe for a variery of reasons.
Hypothetically speaking, is there anything Paris Hilton would be able to have as a secret question that no one can find out? And by this, I mean can't find out by any means possible, i.e. background checks, Google searches, private investigator, etc.
Then it probably isn't a good idea to use "What was my first grade teacher's name?" as a secret question.
Also, secret questions should be entirely optional. Nothing wrong with the concept of having a randomly created new password sent to an alternative e-mail address.
One: Uou are correct. My idea doesn't help that situation. But my idea would help another problem that was brought up.
Two: Most people tend to have one teacher as their first grade teacher, and still we tend to go by the last name. So if someone were to use that, they'd most likely use just the last name. And if someone can't remember the secret answers to their secret questions four months after the fact, there are probably worse problems going on.
Personally, I think ICQ should delete accounts that reach like a 7 year mark, but they shouldn't allow those numbers to be reregistered. I mean, some people might have those numbers on their contact lists still. But what happens if someone comes back 7 years later to find their account deleted? Tough, 7 years is a long time to let that happen.
Why am I saying this? Simply because some people may have forgotten their password to their ICQ account and their profile has personal information they want removed. Or perhaps profiles should become invisible after a 4-7 year mark of being dormant.
There is no such thing as a totally secret-secret question. Those would be considered passwords. Personally, there is nothing I can really think of that someone else doesn't know somehow.
Sorry, I didn't phrase what I said correctly.
I meant all four secret questions need to have all of them answered correctly to go on. Meaning if you get one right, and the other three wrong, it will still say wrong. It won't give any hint that one of those were right. Kind of like how Yahoo! doesn't tell you that part of it is right, when filling our the birthdate, location, and such.
Yes, the Hotmail (not @msn.com) usernames that expire are reusable.
What is it right now? 30 days for e-mail to be deleted? 45 days for the account to expire completely so it can be reregistered? Am I correct on this?
I can agree with e-mail being deleted from the account after a certain period, since it is their space being used up.
I cannot agree with the account expiring in such a short period. Doesn't it take like 7 years for someone to be declared legally dead? I personally would like to see Hotmail accounts take 7 years to totally expire. At minimum, 1-4 years to totally expire. At maximum, 10 years to totally expire. But at some point, they do need to expire so someone else can register them. It prevents good-name hoarding, and what if someone only temporarily registered an e-mail address to quickly register for something and won't ever need to use it again?
Easy secret questions for password reminders, or even moderately difficult secret questions, creates problems.
Like "What is my favorite movie?" then the person lists her favorite movie in her profile.
What they need to do is require four secret questions, all needing to be answered correctly to go on.
A good reminder is not to have a secret question that a background search or a Google search will turn up.
While we're on the topic of security, here is another bad problem.
When you register for an account at a website, and that account doesn't ever expire, yet your e-mail address is one that expires if you don't check it, this creates a problem, especially if you have site updates.
Hypothetically, someone registers an account at a travel website. Their e-mail address is used, and it doesn't matter if it is used for a username or not. This account at the travel website never expires, even if you never go back to it again. Yet the company will keep sending you updates concerning their business. Well, if you let your e-mail address expire, and someone else registers it later on, they won't have trouble doing a password request which will allow them into your account, which will contain your personal information.
Yes, a bit off topic, but it was brought up by the article.
I have to feed my mouse weekly, but I use rechargable batteries. But it's better than paying for new batteries monthly.