Personal jurisdiction is a tricky thing. Just being a citizen (human or corporate) of a foreign country doesn't by itself exempt you from U.S. court jurisdiction. Now, not having any business dealings or assets in the U.S. might make a judgment against you noncollectable, but you may still be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The issue really comes down to - does the nature of your contacts (either direct or indirect) with the U.S. make it reasonable for you to expect to be "haled into court". It's a complex topic and many, many thousands of pages have been written about it. At first glance, Spamhaus may well be subject to U.S. jurisdiction - they would have had to fight it out to determine. But, once they made a general appearance (as opposed to a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction), they submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had to fight it out on the merits. Making just enough of an appearance to submit to jurisdiction and then deciding not to contest on the merits is generally a losing formula.
The court would have had a hard time justifying throwing the case out completely. It's probably true that the court initially didn't have jurisdiction, but according to the article, Spamhaus made an initial appearance in the case. Generally, if you make an appearance, you have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It's not quite the catch-22 it seems, since you can make an appearance SOLELY for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. So - basically Spamhaus' attorney messed up and their client has to live with the consequences.
Btw - I am an attorney.
I may be optimistic about human intelligence - but generally - I assume that the leaders of most major religions don't believe in the tenets of the religion but just see their position as a means to wealth and power. At least I hope so...
I'm an attorney and I'm here to tell you that few people read anything. Not the fine print on their mortgage agreements, not even the large print in most cases.
I am an attorney, although neither constitutional no criminal law are my areas of expertise. Most federal laws that govern things like this are under the "Commerce Clause". This clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states and it has been interpreted to allow federal regulation of almost anything. In this case the crime is making threats over e-mail. Because of the nature of e-mail that threat travels over interstate communications lines. People pay to pass packets over those interstate communications lines - ergo - Interstate commerce! If you think of it this way (and I'm not suggesting this is the correct interpretation of the commerce clause, just the one the supreme court uses) - almost everything is subject to federal control.
I highly recommend "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane. It is literally on of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Right up there with "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Nothing essential about it - You actually had to rent y our phone from AT&T. The phone had a stamp on the bottom that said "Property of AT&T" and private ownership was effectively illegal - since the only way to get one was to buy it from AT&T and they weren't selling any. They used to charge you for EACH phone in your house, and there was a small black market in illegal phones that people used to avoid the "extra extension" fee.
Do you really think that you can "contain an errant government by force"? The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion. The armament gap between governments and citizens has now increased to the point where citizens might as well be unarmed, naked and crippled if they go up against government troops. The best you could hope to do is wage an annoying guerrilla war and pick off a few soldiers before they kill you. Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.
After 15 years in Network Administration - I decided to get a law degree. Now I do Tax law. The pay is great and the skill set is actually quite similar. In both arenas, I found the complex subject that other people were afraid of and learned them to my profit. Both information technology and the law are rule orientated terminology laden disciplines that benefit from an organized thought process and a little hard work.
Actually - the tax hobby loss rules, would not allow that. You need to show the IRS that you are engaged in a business for profit and not just a hobby to claim losses in excess of revenue. As a hobby - you can only claim expenses to the extent of revenue and any excess loss, cannot be carried forward. Sorry.
The issue with Monopoly, is there is no secondary market for monopoly money - thus it's value is not reasonably determinable and so - no tax. If a secondary market were to develop for monopoly money, then it would, arguably, have a determinable value and as such, any that you earned would be potentially subject to tax. Of course, WOW gold and monopoly money differ in other important ways as well. Monopoly is a time limited game, and there is a fairly small, finite amount of money.
Now - if the games are successful in closing down the gold farmers, then the secondary market for gold disappears, and the value of gold becomes indeterminable. Since tax cases are clear that to be taxable, a thing must have a reasonably determinable value, then the gold becomes nontaxable, until someone figures out a way to convert it into cash...
Your thinking about casinos is incorrect. If you were to go into a casino, play and win - you would definitely be subject to tax on your winnings, regardless of whether or not you converted your chips into cash. The chips are a cash equivalent, and are convertible to cash at a determinable rate. All the income tax laws require - if for you to receive something of value and for that value to be reasonably determinable. Think about your pay check. If your employer issues you checks, and you just never get around to cashing them, at the end of the year, you will receive a w-2 and be taxed on the value of the checks - because they are convertible into cash at a reasonably determinable rate.
BTW, if anyone wants to be a test case, here is a good idea. Follow all the rules for a home office (they are fairly strict) and attempt to deduct your home office on your taxes with your business as playing WOW. The IRS will most likely disallow the deduction since you are not pursuing a real business with a profit motive and will determine that your business is in fact a hobby.
I'm an attorney and I do some work in the tax area. Your thinking is not the way that tax works. The rule is - you are taxed on all income from whatever source. Income is the receipt of anything of value. As long as the value is reasonably determinable, you are taxed on that value. If the value is not reasonably determinable, you are taxed on it once the value becomes reasonably determinable. Of course, if you play WOW and earn income, it is as a small business, not as an employee. So all your costs, such as fees to play, and a portion of the depreciation on your computer, and a portion of your internet service fees, etc are deductible against that income. Then you get into a sticky question - if you buy a special weapon, to help you earn more gold - it is a capital expenditure and must be amortized - so what is the amortization period of a virtual weapon? Best thing to do - is not hold it past the end of the calendar year and dispose of it at a loss and take the full loss as a deduction against your WOW earnings. In practice, I think, few people when looked at in this light are profitable playing WOW. But beyond a doubt those who are are subject to the tax laws, although it will not prove profitable for the IRS to pursue these cases, since the amount is so small.
meme is actually a very useful word. It was coined by the Oxford zoologist and neo-Darwinist theorist Richard Dawkins to express the idea that natural selection applies not just to living things - but to anything that replicates - in this case ideas. In his book "The Selfish Gene" he explores in one chapter the parallels between the evolution of species and the evolution of Ideas - a meme is an idea that replicates in the environment of human culture and language. The term may be misused and overused - but it is neither moronic nor meaningless. BTW - "The Selfish Gene" is a fascinating read and an approachable introduction to neo-Darwinism and I recommend it to everyone.
Actually - Employer responsibility for the acts of their employees is fairly limited. Under the principal of Respondeat Superior employers are only responsible for the tortuous actions of employees who are in the "Course and Scope of their employment." Courts can be pretty restrictive about what this means - it's not enough to be in the office during working hours - it usually requires being actively engaged in your job. So unless the offenders job is to edit wikipedia pages - the employer might be off the hook. Full disclosure - I am an attorney, but tort law is not my area of expertise.
I am an attorney and I work in the law enforcement area. The value of a law like this is not actually to track the offenders. It's real value is to use as an additional charge once a violator has been caught. It keep the real habitual offenders in jail longer and makes plea bargaining result in longer terms. I'm not saying it's a good plan - just that the fact that offenders won't register is not really a flaw in the plan.
I can't believe that only 14% of users said it would be difficult to be without internet for a few days. The internet has been out at my girlfriend's place for 2 days now and...
Time to find another GF.
Of course, I still have internet at work and at my place...
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a real review of the display http://crave.cnet.co.uk/monitors/0,39029456,49290999,00.htm Not quite so impressive...
Personal jurisdiction is a tricky thing. Just being a citizen (human or corporate) of a foreign country doesn't by itself exempt you from U.S. court jurisdiction. Now, not having any business dealings or assets in the U.S. might make a judgment against you noncollectable, but you may still be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The issue really comes down to - does the nature of your contacts (either direct or indirect) with the U.S. make it reasonable for you to expect to be "haled into court". It's a complex topic and many, many thousands of pages have been written about it. At first glance, Spamhaus may well be subject to U.S. jurisdiction - they would have had to fight it out to determine. But, once they made a general appearance (as opposed to a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction), they submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had to fight it out on the merits. Making just enough of an appearance to submit to jurisdiction and then deciding not to contest on the merits is generally a losing formula.
The court would have had a hard time justifying throwing the case out completely. It's probably true that the court initially didn't have jurisdiction, but according to the article, Spamhaus made an initial appearance in the case. Generally, if you make an appearance, you have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It's not quite the catch-22 it seems, since you can make an appearance SOLELY for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. So - basically Spamhaus' attorney messed up and their client has to live with the consequences. Btw - I am an attorney.
I'm not sure that backlighting will work - since this is a reflective technology.
You may be right. But as I said, I'm optimistic about human intelligence.
I may be optimistic about human intelligence - but generally - I assume that the leaders of most major religions don't believe in the tenets of the religion but just see their position as a means to wealth and power. At least I hope so...
I'm an attorney and I'm here to tell you that few people read anything. Not the fine print on their mortgage agreements, not even the large print in most cases.
I may be a rare exception - in that I don't really practice law...
I am an attorney, although neither constitutional no criminal law are my areas of expertise. Most federal laws that govern things like this are under the "Commerce Clause". This clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states and it has been interpreted to allow federal regulation of almost anything. In this case the crime is making threats over e-mail. Because of the nature of e-mail that threat travels over interstate communications lines. People pay to pass packets over those interstate communications lines - ergo - Interstate commerce! If you think of it this way (and I'm not suggesting this is the correct interpretation of the commerce clause, just the one the supreme court uses) - almost everything is subject to federal control.
I highly recommend "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane. It is literally on of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Right up there with "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Nothing essential about it - You actually had to rent y our phone from AT&T. The phone had a stamp on the bottom that said "Property of AT&T" and private ownership was effectively illegal - since the only way to get one was to buy it from AT&T and they weren't selling any. They used to charge you for EACH phone in your house, and there was a small black market in illegal phones that people used to avoid the "extra extension" fee.
The bible is not the bible either...
Do you really think that you can "contain an errant government by force"? The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion. The armament gap between governments and citizens has now increased to the point where citizens might as well be unarmed, naked and crippled if they go up against government troops. The best you could hope to do is wage an annoying guerrilla war and pick off a few soldiers before they kill you. Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.
After 15 years in Network Administration - I decided to get a law degree. Now I do Tax law. The pay is great and the skill set is actually quite similar. In both arenas, I found the complex subject that other people were afraid of and learned them to my profit. Both information technology and the law are rule orientated terminology laden disciplines that benefit from an organized thought process and a little hard work.
Actually - the tax hobby loss rules, would not allow that. You need to show the IRS that you are engaged in a business for profit and not just a hobby to claim losses in excess of revenue. As a hobby - you can only claim expenses to the extent of revenue and any excess loss, cannot be carried forward. Sorry.
The issue with Monopoly, is there is no secondary market for monopoly money - thus it's value is not reasonably determinable and so - no tax. If a secondary market were to develop for monopoly money, then it would, arguably, have a determinable value and as such, any that you earned would be potentially subject to tax. Of course, WOW gold and monopoly money differ in other important ways as well. Monopoly is a time limited game, and there is a fairly small, finite amount of money. Now - if the games are successful in closing down the gold farmers, then the secondary market for gold disappears, and the value of gold becomes indeterminable. Since tax cases are clear that to be taxable, a thing must have a reasonably determinable value, then the gold becomes nontaxable, until someone figures out a way to convert it into cash...
Your thinking about casinos is incorrect. If you were to go into a casino, play and win - you would definitely be subject to tax on your winnings, regardless of whether or not you converted your chips into cash. The chips are a cash equivalent, and are convertible to cash at a determinable rate. All the income tax laws require - if for you to receive something of value and for that value to be reasonably determinable. Think about your pay check. If your employer issues you checks, and you just never get around to cashing them, at the end of the year, you will receive a w-2 and be taxed on the value of the checks - because they are convertible into cash at a reasonably determinable rate.
The actual decision formula needs to be more like - "if Q2 > cost of implementation THEN create a .safe tld"
BTW, if anyone wants to be a test case, here is a good idea. Follow all the rules for a home office (they are fairly strict) and attempt to deduct your home office on your taxes with your business as playing WOW. The IRS will most likely disallow the deduction since you are not pursuing a real business with a profit motive and will determine that your business is in fact a hobby.
I'm an attorney and I do some work in the tax area. Your thinking is not the way that tax works. The rule is - you are taxed on all income from whatever source. Income is the receipt of anything of value. As long as the value is reasonably determinable, you are taxed on that value. If the value is not reasonably determinable, you are taxed on it once the value becomes reasonably determinable. Of course, if you play WOW and earn income, it is as a small business, not as an employee. So all your costs, such as fees to play, and a portion of the depreciation on your computer, and a portion of your internet service fees, etc are deductible against that income. Then you get into a sticky question - if you buy a special weapon, to help you earn more gold - it is a capital expenditure and must be amortized - so what is the amortization period of a virtual weapon? Best thing to do - is not hold it past the end of the calendar year and dispose of it at a loss and take the full loss as a deduction against your WOW earnings. In practice, I think, few people when looked at in this light are profitable playing WOW. But beyond a doubt those who are are subject to the tax laws, although it will not prove profitable for the IRS to pursue these cases, since the amount is so small.
meme is actually a very useful word. It was coined by the Oxford zoologist and neo-Darwinist theorist Richard Dawkins to express the idea that natural selection applies not just to living things - but to anything that replicates - in this case ideas. In his book "The Selfish Gene" he explores in one chapter the parallels between the evolution of species and the evolution of Ideas - a meme is an idea that replicates in the environment of human culture and language. The term may be misused and overused - but it is neither moronic nor meaningless. BTW - "The Selfish Gene" is a fascinating read and an approachable introduction to neo-Darwinism and I recommend it to everyone.
Damn - I was hoping for some close out sales.
Actually - Employer responsibility for the acts of their employees is fairly limited. Under the principal of Respondeat Superior employers are only responsible for the tortuous actions of employees who are in the "Course and Scope of their employment." Courts can be pretty restrictive about what this means - it's not enough to be in the office during working hours - it usually requires being actively engaged in your job. So unless the offenders job is to edit wikipedia pages - the employer might be off the hook. Full disclosure - I am an attorney, but tort law is not my area of expertise.
I am an attorney and I work in the law enforcement area. The value of a law like this is not actually to track the offenders. It's real value is to use as an additional charge once a violator has been caught. It keep the real habitual offenders in jail longer and makes plea bargaining result in longer terms. I'm not saying it's a good plan - just that the fact that offenders won't register is not really a flaw in the plan.
I can't believe that only 14% of users said it would be difficult to be without internet for a few days. The internet has been out at my girlfriend's place for 2 days now and ...
Time to find another GF.
Of course, I still have internet at work and at my place...