If you find a handkercheif on the ground that you're going to claim was used by William Shatner should you be taxed for the supposed real world value? No, but if you sell said item on ebay, suddenly it has value, value that you should be taxed on if you're honest when filling out your forms.
Finding the phatest l00t ever in WoW isn't worth anything, the items not really yours, the character who found it isn't really yours, the server it exists upon definitely isn't yours. The second you sell it for real world money though, that is income and it should be taxed.
Most people are not asking to have it both ways, a line should be drawn. Virtual assets are virtual assets, real money is real money, you can tax the real money that someone gets for selling access to virtual items, you can't tax virtual items which in an of themselves have no real value.
The only way to ensure that no one in the federal government gets too much power is to get a whole bunch of people who all refuse to work for anothers personal gain, hoping that the only things they'll ever manage to get accomplished will be the ones that benifit all of them. Unfortunatly OSS doesn't require a 2/3 majority.
Or, at least in one of the clips I saw publicized from one of the G8 confrences in Italy, the protestor who was shot and then run over was convieniently not show attempting to hit a riot officer in the face with a large fire extinguisher.
As was the "We don't need Windows, we can do it all on our shiny Macs with our inherently superior OS!" rhetoric. br
If you can't beat 'em join 'em, but don't pretend you won. Every time a Mac is loaded with Windows MS wins. Even if it was pirated they still get the satisfaction and the exposure of another system running their software, the admitance that no matter how smug Apple gets its users still need the other side. If it was paid for they get the profit to boot.
From what I saw from the close elections and referendum results is that people aren't really sick of being conservatives, or voting as such, they are however very sick of scandals. I think if the Republicans can distance themselves from the idea of corruption, very possible with Rumsfeld stepping down and many of the most awkward Republicans leaving office, they stand a decent chance for the elections in 2008. The left has been predicting the winds of war changing for 6 years, and if the closest they can come is 49 senate seats and a house majority (offset quite a bit by the overwhelming number of Gay marraige bans that when through on the same ticket) after all that time of ramming it down peoples throats (and the Republicans doing ti for them) what a bunch of criminals and nuts Republicans are, then whatever change people are for isn't one I've been privey to. I certainly wish they would, anything would be more intersting then another two years of the same arguments I've been hearing for the last six.
It's always been a game of image, tough on crime, for families, etc. all you can hope for is that you vote for the special intrests on either side who will protect what's important to you, whether it be your guns, abortions, tax money, or God knows what else. The days of the government accountable directly to the people are long gone, thought I guess the government of union/corperate/religious/environmentalist proxy representitives could be worse.
He'd vote for a third party politician because that's who he wants to win, he's just glad that the Democrats are winning because this country has exactly two viable parties, and if you can get what you want at least you can be glad that no one else is going to get what they want either, not because he's vindictive but because what they want is the polar opposite of what he wants.
Same here, big signs all over the poling place "Remeber to flip your ballot over!"
Ofcourse this could be fixed by not having people vote for positions like coroner or deeds clerk which to the best of my knowledge are not at all political positions and simply should have been appointed by the bloated administration above them.
You, me, and ten other guys nation wide. You can't build a system based on either extreme by having votes all the time for people who crave direct democracy, or by not having elections at all (for those who don't vote) The point is voting isn't any more of a hassel right now for most people than it could ever be and they still don't vote, putting more responsibility in their hands isn't going to fix anything.
I'd have to check which if any of our elections in Wisconsin need majority votes, because I know the Secretary of state only got something like 42% last time around in a three way.
If he doesn't know anything about the canidates other than their party and the position they're running for I would say he's probably uninformed enough to not want to vote. There are plent of people out there, myself included who realize that party isn't everything and would rather have a moderate from another party than an absolute extremist from our own. In most cases it shouldn't make much of a difference because the people who at least think they're informed will also vote and will probably decide the election, but living in a campus town I can tell you there are a couple canidates who I know will win based largely on college students who forgot to read the news for the past four weeks and are just voting straight-ticket Democrat and hoping for the best.
The more intersting question is not wether it matters if he votes or is informed, but what the outcome would be if no one voted if they asked themselves whether they really know what canidates stands for and simply stayed home if they couldn't answer it.
I went back throough CNET, ZDnet, and god knows whatever blogs to try and find a source too and I'll be damned if someone hadn't done it already. Max power draw means nothing.
As a former Target employee, I just want to add that those Hot Wheels collectors had to be the single most annoying people on the planet if not because of their behavior then because of the fact that it was litirally an everyday occurance.
If the sign says (paraphrased) "What we have out is what we have, don't ask, even if we had more we wouldn't bring them out" then why do people ask? If the cars are all neatly hung on their pegs when the store opened, why should their be dozens laying on a pile on the shelf below them five minutes later? If you're a grown adult why are you racing another supposedly grown adult accross half the store in the hopes that you'll be the first to find a rare toy?
That struck me too, but I figure Wisconsin is a land of lardasses and we probably bring our beef prices down through large volume buying.
That said, $300 is close to my rent for the month, and given the choice to send a nerfed laptop or have a place to sleep at night, you can call me one selfish sonofabitch.
You want to know boring, take the Amtrak through eastern Montana and North Dakota, nothing but flat, barren land, an occassional highway crossing, and a bunch of car dealerships. I've never spent 18 waking hours of my life being more incredibly disintersted in America.
Don't bother trying to scare people into action. They tried that for 4 years and and it still didn't get lazy college students out to the polls.
-A college student who voted even if it was for a third party
Last I saw Ubuntu both came with more games than a standard Winxp installation and had access to plenty more with with a few clicks and the right permissions.
That's what I've had to try to explain to one of my ex, and current, girlfriends, both of whom wrote "SEE ID" on the back of the card and are gracious whenever someone checks even though what they should really be saying is "See where this card says not valid if not signed? This card isn't signed" Makes me wish, at least on that level that I still worked in retail (of course on every other level I wouldn't go back for anything)
Fast food chains do the same exact thing unless you buy more than $15-25. Most of them, and in my experience Walgreens, tell you exactly that when they don't ask for your signature.
If they paid with a straight credit card it's more likely that they just cost the story money when they bought that $.15 stick of gum after they pay Visa's line fees.
1) Why would I? I've never met my neighbors, and I don't really care what they do on their property. That's a problem of loss of community and has nothing to do with liability or terrorism.
2) Most shopping carts have a place to put your child, speaking as a former retail employee I suggest you use it. Most people who let their kids ride in the basket of the cart seem to forget what happens when they take their eyes of of it and the child stands up and moves, shifting the weight of the cart that only had three items in it to begin with, causeing the child to fall out. I've seen dented skulls, liability is the last thing a good parent would worry about.
3) That's not a liability issue, that's a politeness issue. There is rarely a reason to need to use the opposite sex bathroom and if you really, really, really, have to go that bad I'm sure someone will understand.
4) Depends where you go, still nothing to do with liability.
5) Is there something wrong with not looking like terrorists? I know I try to avoid visits from the ATF and FBI, I always thought that was a good thing.
A friend of mine considered faking a gay love tryst to get out of going to Iraq but decided it wasn't worth having to give back all the money they gave him. He eneded up have a pretty decent time too.
It's optional, for the purpose of "preventing mistaken identities" honestly with all the other information you have to give them as well as being run through the NIC you may as well just give it to them, they already know more about you than you own mother.
Slashdot Mirror
If he wanted to pay copyright redistribution fees on all his media he wouldn't even be asking the question.
The difference is real world value.
If you find a handkercheif on the ground that you're going to claim was used by William Shatner should you be taxed for the supposed real world value? No, but if you sell said item on ebay, suddenly it has value, value that you should be taxed on if you're honest when filling out your forms.
Finding the phatest l00t ever in WoW isn't worth anything, the items not really yours, the character who found it isn't really yours, the server it exists upon definitely isn't yours. The second you sell it for real world money though, that is income and it should be taxed.
Most people are not asking to have it both ways, a line should be drawn. Virtual assets are virtual assets, real money is real money, you can tax the real money that someone gets for selling access to virtual items, you can't tax virtual items which in an of themselves have no real value.
Same argument as the Fedralist Papers.
The only way to ensure that no one in the federal government gets too much power is to get a whole bunch of people who all refuse to work for anothers personal gain, hoping that the only things they'll ever manage to get accomplished will be the ones that benifit all of them. Unfortunatly OSS doesn't require a 2/3 majority.
Or, at least in one of the clips I saw publicized from one of the G8 confrences in Italy, the protestor who was shot and then run over was convieniently not show attempting to hit a riot officer in the face with a large fire extinguisher.
As was the "We don't need Windows, we can do it all on our shiny Macs with our inherently superior OS!" rhetoric.
br If you can't beat 'em join 'em, but don't pretend you won. Every time a Mac is loaded with Windows MS wins. Even if it was pirated they still get the satisfaction and the exposure of another system running their software, the admitance that no matter how smug Apple gets its users still need the other side. If it was paid for they get the profit to boot.
From what I saw from the close elections and referendum results is that people aren't really sick of being conservatives, or voting as such, they are however very sick of scandals. I think if the Republicans can distance themselves from the idea of corruption, very possible with Rumsfeld stepping down and many of the most awkward Republicans leaving office, they stand a decent chance for the elections in 2008. The left has been predicting the winds of war changing for 6 years, and if the closest they can come is 49 senate seats and a house majority (offset quite a bit by the overwhelming number of Gay marraige bans that when through on the same ticket) after all that time of ramming it down peoples throats (and the Republicans doing ti for them) what a bunch of criminals and nuts Republicans are, then whatever change people are for isn't one I've been privey to. I certainly wish they would, anything would be more intersting then another two years of the same arguments I've been hearing for the last six.
It's always been a game of image, tough on crime, for families, etc. all you can hope for is that you vote for the special intrests on either side who will protect what's important to you, whether it be your guns, abortions, tax money, or God knows what else. The days of the government accountable directly to the people are long gone, thought I guess the government of union/corperate/religious/environmentalist proxy representitives could be worse.
He'd vote for a third party politician because that's who he wants to win, he's just glad that the Democrats are winning because this country has exactly two viable parties, and if you can get what you want at least you can be glad that no one else is going to get what they want either, not because he's vindictive but because what they want is the polar opposite of what he wants.
Same here, big signs all over the poling place "Remeber to flip your ballot over!"
Ofcourse this could be fixed by not having people vote for positions like coroner or deeds clerk which to the best of my knowledge are not at all political positions and simply should have been appointed by the bloated administration above them.
You, me, and ten other guys nation wide. You can't build a system based on either extreme by having votes all the time for people who crave direct democracy, or by not having elections at all (for those who don't vote) The point is voting isn't any more of a hassel right now for most people than it could ever be and they still don't vote, putting more responsibility in their hands isn't going to fix anything.
I'd have to check which if any of our elections in Wisconsin need majority votes, because I know the Secretary of state only got something like 42% last time around in a three way.
If he doesn't know anything about the canidates other than their party and the position they're running for I would say he's probably uninformed enough to not want to vote. There are plent of people out there, myself included who realize that party isn't everything and would rather have a moderate from another party than an absolute extremist from our own. In most cases it shouldn't make much of a difference because the people who at least think they're informed will also vote and will probably decide the election, but living in a campus town I can tell you there are a couple canidates who I know will win based largely on college students who forgot to read the news for the past four weeks and are just voting straight-ticket Democrat and hoping for the best. The more intersting question is not wether it matters if he votes or is informed, but what the outcome would be if no one voted if they asked themselves whether they really know what canidates stands for and simply stayed home if they couldn't answer it.
I went back throough CNET, ZDnet, and god knows whatever blogs to try and find a source too and I'll be damned if someone hadn't done it already. Max power draw means nothing.
As a former Target employee, I just want to add that those Hot Wheels collectors had to be the single most annoying people on the planet if not because of their behavior then because of the fact that it was litirally an everyday occurance.
If the sign says (paraphrased) "What we have out is what we have, don't ask, even if we had more we wouldn't bring them out" then why do people ask? If the cars are all neatly hung on their pegs when the store opened, why should their be dozens laying on a pile on the shelf below them five minutes later? If you're a grown adult why are you racing another supposedly grown adult accross half the store in the hopes that you'll be the first to find a rare toy?
That job made me unhappy.
That struck me too, but I figure Wisconsin is a land of lardasses and we probably bring our beef prices down through large volume buying.
That said, $300 is close to my rent for the month, and given the choice to send a nerfed laptop or have a place to sleep at night, you can call me one selfish sonofabitch.
You want to know boring, take the Amtrak through eastern Montana and North Dakota, nothing but flat, barren land, an occassional highway crossing, and a bunch of car dealerships. I've never spent 18 waking hours of my life being more incredibly disintersted in America.
Don't bother trying to scare people into action. They tried that for 4 years and and it still didn't get lazy college students out to the polls. -A college student who voted even if it was for a third party
Last I saw Ubuntu both came with more games than a standard Winxp installation and had access to plenty more with with a few clicks and the right permissions.
That's what I've had to try to explain to one of my ex, and current, girlfriends, both of whom wrote "SEE ID" on the back of the card and are gracious whenever someone checks even though what they should really be saying is "See where this card says not valid if not signed? This card isn't signed" Makes me wish, at least on that level that I still worked in retail (of course on every other level I wouldn't go back for anything)
Fast food chains do the same exact thing unless you buy more than $15-25. Most of them, and in my experience Walgreens, tell you exactly that when they don't ask for your signature.
If they paid with a straight credit card it's more likely that they just cost the story money when they bought that $.15 stick of gum after they pay Visa's line fees.
Given the news these days I'm far more worried about the university, you wouldn't even have to steal it, just find a misplaced laptop.
1) Why would I? I've never met my neighbors, and I don't really care what they do on their property. That's a problem of loss of community and has nothing to do with liability or terrorism.
2) Most shopping carts have a place to put your child, speaking as a former retail employee I suggest you use it. Most people who let their kids ride in the basket of the cart seem to forget what happens when they take their eyes of of it and the child stands up and moves, shifting the weight of the cart that only had three items in it to begin with, causeing the child to fall out. I've seen dented skulls, liability is the last thing a good parent would worry about.
3) That's not a liability issue, that's a politeness issue. There is rarely a reason to need to use the opposite sex bathroom and if you really, really, really, have to go that bad I'm sure someone will understand.
4) Depends where you go, still nothing to do with liability.
5) Is there something wrong with not looking like terrorists? I know I try to avoid visits from the ATF and FBI, I always thought that was a good thing.
Maybe I just missed the point of your post?
A friend of mine considered faking a gay love tryst to get out of going to Iraq but decided it wasn't worth having to give back all the money they gave him. He eneded up have a pretty decent time too.
It's optional, for the purpose of "preventing mistaken identities" honestly with all the other information you have to give them as well as being run through the NIC you may as well just give it to them, they already know more about you than you own mother.