But perhaps he is confused about fascism, since the state-corporate intertwining is only one aspect -- and on the other aspects, the current Admininstration is far different from the prior one (and the fascist-leaning Republicans in general).
It is however illegal to snoop other people's pager traffic.
Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.
Why, I'll bet most of your phone calls are unencrypted...
Landline calls are privileged correspondence, not a broadcast (unlike pager signals). I have Verizon as a wireless carrier, so my cell calls are encrypted with CDMA. However, it's easily overcome, as you can spoof a tower signal and tell a cell phone to stop encrypting. That, however, IS illegal, as it is circumventing a security measure to prevent unauthorized access.
Not on Long Island. Not in NJ, either, not for a long time. Today Irish Catholics tend to be Republicans, because of the wedge issues of abortion and other "family values" (not to mention race) the Republican party used to split that demographic away from the Democratic Party in the 90s.
Note that King's fiscal base is wealthy Irish Catholics and Jews (both tend to be conservative Republicans), but his voting base is blue-collar. That's how the Republican party works, especially in suburban areas.
So... apparently the Current Administration and some Republicans DO have something in common....
What are you smoking? Peter King is a Republican Congressman who's been in office since 1992. When someone refers to "the Current Administration" they are referring to the President's Office, not Congress. In general.
Why are we blaming him then? His voters put him in office. It's their discretion if they should not vote for him again if his actions don't meet their requirements. Political corruption and ineptness will always rise to meet society's acceptable level of corruption and ineptness.
No, his voters were given the choice of voting for him or for his opponent. The political machine and wealthy connections gave him the money to run his campaign, gave him the support to run, and most importantly, ensured he runs unopposed in the primary every election cycle... he's a breadwinner for the Republican party because of his wealthy IRA-supporting contacts.
Voters really have no choice except for candidate A or B. The rest is controlled by the political parties and the media. In districts that lean heavily towards Republican or Democrat, there is no choice for the individual voter.
Once they go over the level accepted by society, the politicians are removed in an appropriate manner.
The problem is that the level accepted by society is established by the political parties and the media. It takes a severe moral transgression like wifebeating, homosexuality (to some people in some districts), or outright theft to oust an incumbent in a not-very-divided district. Incumbents in districts like 3rd NY rarely get ousted for political reasons. "He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard", I believe the saying goes.
The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.
The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.
Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.
your post is a check list of why unions think they should exist which has nothing to do with the real world anymore.
And I'll give you one good reason why they should exist: the discrepancies in pay between executive, management, and floor.
Issues with working conditions, job safety, insurance, etc have all been addressed to some extent (most would argue they've been addressed completely. I disagree). But at a certain point, it's about compensation. And as long as there is some unemployment, it's an employer's market out there. Unions are the one method that workers can use to overcome the power of money at the top.
That said, I've got one more thing to say about corporate ownership. If you think that most workers, collectively, can afford to become complacent with how they are treated in the workplace, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalist corporations work. Constant vigilance is required.
But I suspect that you were burned by a bad union. We all know that there are downsides to everything, and there are obvious issues with any large organization. But do you really feel that there is no merit in collective bargaining?
Supposedly, according to a wifi hotspot provider, one of their unnamed clients was fined because an unnamed patron downloaded some unnamed copyrighted material.
I'm surprised the amount wasn't also undisclosed.
Now, I'm all for the birth of new urban legends for the hi-tech crowd... and maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this sure seems like some nice marketing for that wifi company, whose name I will omit in case marketing is what this is about.
See, they get their name plastered on the intertubes, while their claim will get thoroughly debunked, and all people will remember is the name of the company and the fact that public wifi operators are protected by safe harbor laws.
If the pub DID really get fined GBP 8k for copyright violations, it's probably more likely that it was because they were streaming sports content live to their patrons. This is how I watch Rutgers football games that are not on TV... I go to a bar where they stream the games (albeit at very low res with some hiccuping) onto a big-screen TV.
But, I'm guessing here, based on the words of that wifi company. Which is the same thing everyone is doing, so why can't we just ignore this stupid story until there is some actual fact-checking done?
I will now commit rutual seppuku to prevent the savage flaming i am no doubt abount to receive.
Death is no escape from a savage flaming on slashdot. It just means we will be crisping your corpse and be denied the joys of imagining the sounds of your lamentations and woe. On second thought, we could just *pretend* you didn't commit seppuku, and still have those joys. So really, your effort goes wasted -- please put the wakizashi down and resume whatever it was you were doing.
On the other hand, maybe you *weren't* going to really commit suppuku, and were just pretending to, to throw the flamers off your trail. If so, nice move. You have confounded the Slashdot Flamemasters. I salute you.
If IBM did this, we'd all understand - they are in the hardware business. But for Google to go to the trouble to patent it, seems odd. I'm trying to understand their motivation, and if it is simply to force Yahoo and others to spend more money for power, then I'm not sure it passes the smell test.
IBM is not primarily in the hardware business... you know that, right? Services are the biggest revenue generator at IBM.
As for Google, what kind of company do you think they are? What's their main gig? Data. Acquiring data. Data analysis. Data storage. Serving data. Using data analysis to maximize the value of their adspace.
Considering that so much of their business revolves around data processing, wouldn't you think that a method that reduces one of their largest costs (datacenter operation) is key to their business? If anything, datacenter technology is at the forefront of what Google does.
Cattle are one of the most successful species on the planet. Why? Because, they threw their lot in with humans.
You make a good point, but that's a heck of an anthropomorphism.
Modern cattle as a species are successful because they were domesticable, and humans have been successful with selective breeding to make them an even more desirable domesticate. The forebears of modern cattle? Not so successful.
We have adapted cattle to fill an ecological niche (food and leather goods for human consumption), but cattle progenitors have been forced out of their original niches for the most part. Sure, change is inevitable, but for humans to have driven cattle forebears from their original ecological niche is hardly success for the cattle, in my book.
But anyway, I know you were making a joke about PETA's true goal being the extinction of cattle as a species. But that's not quite right. PETA just wants us to treat cows ethically. That means no lying to them, no stealing from their pension funds, and most importantly, no teasing them mercilessly because they have small udders or their horns are crooked (oh yeah, we also should execute them painlessly). If we can do those things, then PETA has no problem with us devouring tasty cowflesh.
Well, color me confused, I see it as $18 on both Walmart's and Amazon's site.
What? Walmart: $14.49 Amazon: $14.50
Don't get me wrong, this is great news for consumers but I think you're just seeing preperation for a Black Friday feeding frenzy and not actual 'price wars.'
Prices have since changed, so the prices you've found don't reflect historical pricing. As for the "Black Friday feeding frenzy" vs. price wars... those aren't mutually exclusive. Periods of high sales volume are when it's most important to be able to adjust prices relevant to competition -- especially if engaged in a price war to capture volume.
Wal-Mart stays away from heavily populated areas and makes most of its bank from the heartland anyway.
Hah. How many Walmarts are there in NJ, the nation's most densely populated state? Lots. How about the San Francisco Bay area, as another poster pointed out?
At any rate, it is competition. What cracks me up is that someone siding with Walmart is claiming that Amazon is trying to drive B&M shops out of existence, and Walmart must defend B&M retail outlets against the predations of Amazon. Seems to me that Amazon is playing the same game Walmart played that drove all the traditional retailers out of business... giving customers lower prices due to reduced overhead.
Look at the success rate of home-schooled children in national spelling bees as a start.
Yes, let's do that. Can you tell me how those great spellers test against national standards in math? How about science? How about history?
Just because some parents drive their kids to excel in one area doesn't mean that those kids are getting a well-rounded education that will actually prepare them for life and/or further education.
Their achievements in one small area is a red herring; unless you can demonstrate that those kids are getting a well-rounded education, you'd be better off not mentioning their spelling success.
You need to cut the fish first into smaller pieces, but freezing very quickly at a very low temp (dry ice works fine for this) you can freeze food without a huge penalty to texture/flavor.
The problem with freezing at a higher temperature is that the ice forms large crystals which disrupt the cell membranes. When you freeze at a low temperature, you don't get large crystals, so the cells stay pretty much intact.
You can try this at home with strawberries, if you don't want to risk a nice piece of fish for your experiment. Buy some dry ice, and freeze some strawberries with it. The texture of the strawberries is barely affected.
Flash freezing isn't perfect, but it's a nice compromise between food safety and food enjoyment.
I asked them if they had put any backdoors in Windows 7 and the representative said loudly and nervously that that was preposterous and 'patently false' while scribbling something on a piece of paper.
I'm not describing Letters of Marque. The fallacy of Wikipedia is exposed yet again:)
LoMs did not exist when Drake roamed the Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Channel.
I know your wikipedia link cites Drake as a famous recipient, but he was dead long before the first British LoM was issued in 1707. He had a different, stronger support from the Crown than a LoM. From time to time, QE I authorized and funded him to go on piracy expeditions, the returns of which were split with the Crown to some degree. Eventually, he became wealthy enough that it worked another way... he was a funder of the British navy, because QE I demanded that merchants and other ship owners such as Drake fund their own defense (she was poor, by our notions of Crown Royalty -- although schemes like this ended up making her rich).
And back to the meat of the issue, the analogy --
State condoned piracy in this case seems to be largely done by the large corporations misusing copyright, DCMA and ACTA. So the pirate's victims seem to be the general populace which means the government is trying to use proxies to wage war against it's constituents.
I think that's backwards. The pirates, in the modern case, are the **AA member companies. They are getting laws and regulations enacted (like LoMs) that allow them to seize the assets of others based upon nominal ownership of IP.
That's the great marketing success of the **AAs -- they've managed to rebrand the victims as pirates, while they (as corporate entities, like in the famous Monty Python sketch) are the real pirates.
Considering the proud history of the British navy, it would make sense of them to appoint a person in charge of finding pirates on the high seas.
FWIW, a lot of the proud history of the British navy is due to their support for pirates. Privateers were a sizable portion of the British navy that sunk the Spanish Armada (of course, a timely storm helped a lot with that one). They were also a very important tool in the economic war with Spain that QE I was waging. I read a very good biography of Drake that goes into detail... suffice it to say the Crown fully supported piracy, as long as it wasn't targeted at British vessels. So much so that QE I entertained Drake as a suitor to ensure his support of Her.
There's some kind of analogy here... if the high seas, as a chief method of commerce of the time, can be equated to the internet, as a chief method of commerce in our time... then perhaps Brtain should consider sponsoring these pirates instead, and riding their coattails to a new era of economic dominance? And maybe Dark Lord Mandy should consider dating one of the pirates?
OK, it's a bad analogy. But I haven't seen Bad Analogy Guy in a while, so I'm doing my best to fill in.
From the article linked to for NJ (which has nothing to do with NJ, btw -- are you trolling, assuming no one would click your links?) -- (emphasis mine)
At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 -- the percentage pay raise they received -- and came up with 935 jobs saved.
You can't help idiocy. This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184. People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.
I also can pay myself a 'reasonable' salary out of my total bill rate, that saves me $$$ in SS and medicare taxes. For example, say I bill out $100K. I pay myself a 'reasonable' salary of $40K. That means I only have to pay SS and medicare taxes on that $40K. The rest of the $60K falls through and EOY on my personal taxes, and I only pay regular state and federal taxes on that. Save a decent amount of money.
Careful, there. You need to talk to a tax accountant before you get audited. Is $40k reasonable pay for the services you perform on behalf of the corporation? What would someone performing your job get paid in a traditional salaried role?
An acquaintance of mine does tech support in the fashion industry in NY. He got busted by the IRS for doing exactly what you're doing, and had to pay penalties, plus FICA on the difference, and he had to convert the S-Corp into a C-Corp instead (so then he had the joys of paying corporate income tax, paying dividends to himself, paying capital gains on the dividends, and paying income tax & FICA on his salary).
Which brings us back to the key point - they aren't taxing you. The debate isn't about whether they can tax you, it's about whether they can compell you to collect a tax for them and send it along in exchange for letting you do business with people who would owe said taxes.
That's a semantics issue. Both parties (buyer & seller) are being taxed -- this is a transactional tax. It really doesn't matter who collects and pays the tax from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, it does matter, though -- there's an additional cost to the tax, which is the cost of compliance. Sellers don't feel they need to assume this cost if they don't have a presence in the state in question.
My personal feeling? Online tax-free (effectively) commerce is killing retail commerce and state revenues. As more commerce moves online, we've got to figure out how to get states off using sales tax as a major stream of revenue -- it's like the music publishers whose business model is being destroyed by advancing technology. States can adapt their business model, or they can enact more draconian laws to continue using an outdated model. IMO, sales tax is bad anyway, since it is regressive.
Except, of course, if you itemize your federal deductions. Then you get to deduct either your state income tax paid or your state Sales & Use tax paid.
If you opt for Sales & Use tax deduction, and the amount is very high, that's a flag item that increases the likelihood you get audited. This sucks for people who buy a new car in a state with low income tax.
What you described is not waterfall, not by any measure. It is a contrasting methodology.
It has nothing to do with cutesy monikers (which, btw, is a fair dig at Sashimi). The reason it's not waterfall, however, has nothing to do with the overlap of phases.
What it does have to do with is the fact that it's iterative. Iterative design was developed (or evolved, or whatever) in response to the weaknesses of waterfall methods. The iteration is what makes it !waterfall.
Waterfall is iterative. If your company implements it stupidly then thats not the fault of the process model, just your implementation of it.
Waterfall is not iterative. By definition. Modified waterfalls can be iterative, but the very definition of a pure Waterfall development process is not iterative.
Each gate does not require 100% completion of the current phase before starting the next phase, you just need to complete enough to reduce the risk of proceeding.
That is not a pure Waterfall methodology. That's what's known as the Sashimi model, another modified Waterfall.
What you describe is not Waterfall. It is Iterative. They are two different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see. Flew over my head.
But perhaps he is confused about fascism, since the state-corporate intertwining is only one aspect -- and on the other aspects, the current Admininstration is far different from the prior one (and the fascist-leaning Republicans in general).
Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.
Landline calls are privileged correspondence, not a broadcast (unlike pager signals). I have Verizon as a wireless carrier, so my cell calls are encrypted with CDMA. However, it's easily overcome, as you can spoof a tower signal and tell a cell phone to stop encrypting. That, however, IS illegal, as it is circumventing a security measure to prevent unauthorized access.
Not on Long Island. Not in NJ, either, not for a long time. Today Irish Catholics tend to be Republicans, because of the wedge issues of abortion and other "family values" (not to mention race) the Republican party used to split that demographic away from the Democratic Party in the 90s.
Note that King's fiscal base is wealthy Irish Catholics and Jews (both tend to be conservative Republicans), but his voting base is blue-collar. That's how the Republican party works, especially in suburban areas.
What are you smoking? Peter King is a Republican Congressman who's been in office since 1992. When someone refers to "the Current Administration" they are referring to the President's Office, not Congress. In general.
No, his voters were given the choice of voting for him or for his opponent. The political machine and wealthy connections gave him the money to run his campaign, gave him the support to run, and most importantly, ensured he runs unopposed in the primary every election cycle... he's a breadwinner for the Republican party because of his wealthy IRA-supporting contacts.
Voters really have no choice except for candidate A or B. The rest is controlled by the political parties and the media. In districts that lean heavily towards Republican or Democrat, there is no choice for the individual voter.
The problem is that the level accepted by society is established by the political parties and the media. It takes a severe moral transgression like wifebeating, homosexuality (to some people in some districts), or outright theft to oust an incumbent in a not-very-divided district. Incumbents in districts like 3rd NY rarely get ousted for political reasons. "He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard", I believe the saying goes.
The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.
The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.
Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.
And I'll give you one good reason why they should exist: the discrepancies in pay between executive, management, and floor.
Issues with working conditions, job safety, insurance, etc have all been addressed to some extent (most would argue they've been addressed completely. I disagree). But at a certain point, it's about compensation. And as long as there is some unemployment, it's an employer's market out there. Unions are the one method that workers can use to overcome the power of money at the top.
That said, I've got one more thing to say about corporate ownership. If you think that most workers, collectively, can afford to become complacent with how they are treated in the workplace, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalist corporations work. Constant vigilance is required.
But I suspect that you were burned by a bad union. We all know that there are downsides to everything, and there are obvious issues with any large organization. But do you really feel that there is no merit in collective bargaining?
Nice, some rumor propagation on the front page.
Supposedly, according to a wifi hotspot provider, one of their unnamed clients was fined because an unnamed patron downloaded some unnamed copyrighted material.
I'm surprised the amount wasn't also undisclosed.
Now, I'm all for the birth of new urban legends for the hi-tech crowd... and maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this sure seems like some nice marketing for that wifi company, whose name I will omit in case marketing is what this is about.
See, they get their name plastered on the intertubes, while their claim will get thoroughly debunked, and all people will remember is the name of the company and the fact that public wifi operators are protected by safe harbor laws.
If the pub DID really get fined GBP 8k for copyright violations, it's probably more likely that it was because they were streaming sports content live to their patrons. This is how I watch Rutgers football games that are not on TV... I go to a bar where they stream the games (albeit at very low res with some hiccuping) onto a big-screen TV.
But, I'm guessing here, based on the words of that wifi company. Which is the same thing everyone is doing, so why can't we just ignore this stupid story until there is some actual fact-checking done?
Death is no escape from a savage flaming on slashdot. It just means we will be crisping your corpse and be denied the joys of imagining the sounds of your lamentations and woe. On second thought, we could just *pretend* you didn't commit seppuku, and still have those joys. So really, your effort goes wasted -- please put the wakizashi down and resume whatever it was you were doing.
On the other hand, maybe you *weren't* going to really commit suppuku, and were just pretending to, to throw the flamers off your trail. If so, nice move. You have confounded the Slashdot Flamemasters. I salute you.
IBM is not primarily in the hardware business... you know that, right? Services are the biggest revenue generator at IBM.
As for Google, what kind of company do you think they are? What's their main gig? Data. Acquiring data. Data analysis. Data storage. Serving data. Using data analysis to maximize the value of their adspace.
Considering that so much of their business revolves around data processing, wouldn't you think that a method that reduces one of their largest costs (datacenter operation) is key to their business? If anything, datacenter technology is at the forefront of what Google does.
You make a good point, but that's a heck of an anthropomorphism.
Modern cattle as a species are successful because they were domesticable, and humans have been successful with selective breeding to make them an even more desirable domesticate. The forebears of modern cattle? Not so successful.
We have adapted cattle to fill an ecological niche (food and leather goods for human consumption), but cattle progenitors have been forced out of their original niches for the most part. Sure, change is inevitable, but for humans to have driven cattle forebears from their original ecological niche is hardly success for the cattle, in my book.
But anyway, I know you were making a joke about PETA's true goal being the extinction of cattle as a species. But that's not quite right. PETA just wants us to treat cows ethically. That means no lying to them, no stealing from their pension funds, and most importantly, no teasing them mercilessly because they have small udders or their horns are crooked (oh yeah, we also should execute them painlessly). If we can do those things, then PETA has no problem with us devouring tasty cowflesh.
And the corollary is... a dirty old man is a healthy old man.
This is why I plan on mounting mirrors and/or cameras on both my cane and my shoetips.
This is why, as an old man, I will take a volunteer job on a college campus somewhere in Florida.
This is why, as an old man, I plan to be a huge supporter of high school sports, standing on the sidelines with my hands in my pockets.
I don't want to die, and if being a dirty old man is what it takes, then so be it.
Speak for yourself. My favorite mental masturbation toy is slashdot. Where else can I get my mental rocks off by emulating Yakov?
In Soviet Russia, Haskell masturbates to you!
Prices have since changed, so the prices you've found don't reflect historical pricing. As for the "Black Friday feeding frenzy" vs. price wars... those aren't mutually exclusive. Periods of high sales volume are when it's most important to be able to adjust prices relevant to competition -- especially if engaged in a price war to capture volume.
Hah. How many Walmarts are there in NJ, the nation's most densely populated state? Lots. How about the San Francisco Bay area, as another poster pointed out?
At any rate, it is competition. What cracks me up is that someone siding with Walmart is claiming that Amazon is trying to drive B&M shops out of existence, and Walmart must defend B&M retail outlets against the predations of Amazon. Seems to me that Amazon is playing the same game Walmart played that drove all the traditional retailers out of business... giving customers lower prices due to reduced overhead.
Yes, let's do that. Can you tell me how those great spellers test against national standards in math? How about science? How about history?
Just because some parents drive their kids to excel in one area doesn't mean that those kids are getting a well-rounded education that will actually prepare them for life and/or further education.
Their achievements in one small area is a red herring; unless you can demonstrate that those kids are getting a well-rounded education, you'd be better off not mentioning their spelling success.
Flash freezing works, though.
You need to cut the fish first into smaller pieces, but freezing very quickly at a very low temp (dry ice works fine for this) you can freeze food without a huge penalty to texture/flavor.
The problem with freezing at a higher temperature is that the ice forms large crystals which disrupt the cell membranes. When you freeze at a low temperature, you don't get large crystals, so the cells stay pretty much intact.
You can try this at home with strawberries, if you don't want to risk a nice piece of fish for your experiment. Buy some dry ice, and freeze some strawberries with it. The texture of the strawberries is barely affected.
Flash freezing isn't perfect, but it's a nice compromise between food safety and food enjoyment.
MS marketing reps can't write.
LoMs did not exist when Drake roamed the Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Channel.
I know your wikipedia link cites Drake as a famous recipient, but he was dead long before the first British LoM was issued in 1707. He had a different, stronger support from the Crown than a LoM. From time to time, QE I authorized and funded him to go on piracy expeditions, the returns of which were split with the Crown to some degree. Eventually, he became wealthy enough that it worked another way... he was a funder of the British navy, because QE I demanded that merchants and other ship owners such as Drake fund their own defense (she was poor, by our notions of Crown Royalty -- although schemes like this ended up making her rich).
And back to the meat of the issue, the analogy --
I think that's backwards. The pirates, in the modern case, are the **AA member companies. They are getting laws and regulations enacted (like LoMs) that allow them to seize the assets of others based upon nominal ownership of IP.
That's the great marketing success of the **AAs -- they've managed to rebrand the victims as pirates, while they (as corporate entities, like in the famous Monty Python sketch) are the real pirates.
FWIW, a lot of the proud history of the British navy is due to their support for pirates. Privateers were a sizable portion of the British navy that sunk the Spanish Armada (of course, a timely storm helped a lot with that one). They were also a very important tool in the economic war with Spain that QE I was waging. I read a very good biography of Drake that goes into detail... suffice it to say the Crown fully supported piracy, as long as it wasn't targeted at British vessels. So much so that QE I entertained Drake as a suitor to ensure his support of Her.
There's some kind of analogy here... if the high seas, as a chief method of commerce of the time, can be equated to the internet, as a chief method of commerce in our time... then perhaps Brtain should consider sponsoring these pirates instead, and riding their coattails to a new era of economic dominance? And maybe Dark Lord Mandy should consider dating one of the pirates?
OK, it's a bad analogy. But I haven't seen Bad Analogy Guy in a while, so I'm doing my best to fill in.
You can't help idiocy. This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184. People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.
Careful, there. You need to talk to a tax accountant before you get audited. Is $40k reasonable pay for the services you perform on behalf of the corporation? What would someone performing your job get paid in a traditional salaried role?
An acquaintance of mine does tech support in the fashion industry in NY. He got busted by the IRS for doing exactly what you're doing, and had to pay penalties, plus FICA on the difference, and he had to convert the S-Corp into a C-Corp instead (so then he had the joys of paying corporate income tax, paying dividends to himself, paying capital gains on the dividends, and paying income tax & FICA on his salary).
That's a semantics issue. Both parties (buyer & seller) are being taxed -- this is a transactional tax. It really doesn't matter who collects and pays the tax from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, it does matter, though -- there's an additional cost to the tax, which is the cost of compliance. Sellers don't feel they need to assume this cost if they don't have a presence in the state in question.
My personal feeling? Online tax-free (effectively) commerce is killing retail commerce and state revenues. As more commerce moves online, we've got to figure out how to get states off using sales tax as a major stream of revenue -- it's like the music publishers whose business model is being destroyed by advancing technology. States can adapt their business model, or they can enact more draconian laws to continue using an outdated model. IMO, sales tax is bad anyway, since it is regressive.
Except, of course, if you itemize your federal deductions. Then you get to deduct either your state income tax paid or your state Sales & Use tax paid.
If you opt for Sales & Use tax deduction, and the amount is very high, that's a flag item that increases the likelihood you get audited. This sucks for people who buy a new car in a state with low income tax.
What you described is not waterfall, not by any measure. It is a contrasting methodology.
It has nothing to do with cutesy monikers (which, btw, is a fair dig at Sashimi). The reason it's not waterfall, however, has nothing to do with the overlap of phases.
What it does have to do with is the fact that it's iterative. Iterative design was developed (or evolved, or whatever) in response to the weaknesses of waterfall methods. The iteration is what makes it !waterfall.
Waterfall is not iterative. By definition. Modified waterfalls can be iterative, but the very definition of a pure Waterfall development process is not iterative.
That is not a pure Waterfall methodology. That's what's known as the Sashimi model, another modified Waterfall.
What you describe is not Waterfall. It is Iterative. They are two different things.