The cost of shipping is generally about the same as the cost of sales tax. It evens out for the most part (free shipping comes from somewhere as well.) There is no inherent advantage to it. By being forced to collect out of state sales tax, these out of state entities are being told to do something by a state that they have no dealings with, gain no advantage from and without compensation.
The idea that this will even the playing field for local businesses is extremely short sighted. A lot of local businesses have websites or sell through sites like eBay. They will also be impacted as will businesses that might be thinking about going online to increase their sales even if their intent is to mainly sell locally.
There is a reason that companies like WalMart and Amazon are supporting this legislation. It will kill off their competition, including local businesses, many of which depend upon online sales to boost their revenue.
If states want to continue to push their (unconstitutional...it is just a way to levy sales tax on sales outside of the state) use taxes, then they already have that avenue. There is no need to burden and in many cases kill off businesses because they don't want to go the even uglier route of pushing their use taxes.
Depends on where you live. People who are even a short distance from a town (talking a couple of miles) are often limited to low speed DSL on very unreliable lines if they can even get that. It may not be "average" but it is a significant percentage of people.
And you still have yet to outline anything that is an actual crime with the possible exception of accessing the networking closet that was open to the public. A few civil matters, but no actual crimes.
If I won the lottery, I'd have a couple of stashes containing large amounts of cash that are not kept in a bank. My car might not be the first place that I'd choose to store it, but a secret compartment would be where I'd put it if I needed to move it from one location to another.
A weapon is also a tool. They can be used for recreation (without killing,) to gather food (meat doesn't grow on trees or in the supermarket,) or to protect one's property or family (from threats on any number of legs.) Your personal feelings or enjoyment of those activities does not affect the legitimacy of them. I'm sure that other people don't enjoy or appreciate activities that you do, but that doesn't mean that we can automatically dismiss them as not being practical or legitimate.
Sure, they can be misused just like any other tool, but if we banned every tool that can be misused, we wouldn't have anything. *That* is the point of the car and baseball bat analogies.
Rather than the tool, your energy should be focused on the misuse of the tool. How do we minimize misuse? This isn't an easy question to answer as there are multiple scenarios to deal with. You have criminal misuse which commonly involves illegal guns. You have mishandling incidents. You have crimes of passion which commonly involve legally owned guns. And then you have the rare, but sensationalized cases of mass shootings (technically criminal misuse, but distinct enough to warrant its own category.) There isn't a one size fits all answer to these scenarios (getting rid of all of the guns isn't an option either legally or practically, so lets not even bother with that) so you need to tackle each one in turn. IMHO, Honest dialogue about the issue would start here. Having two sides that just promote extreme positions is never going to allow us to advance towards a real solution.
The smart play would be to quietly bury some code in the guidance system that causes the missile to explode in the tube if it targets and fires upon a friendly IFF beacon.
First of all, you are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant you any rights. It says that the Government cannot infringe on certain rights. This is a very important distinction.
Secondly, it has been said many times throughout our history, both in our courts and by our founders, that the ability to be anonymous is paramount to the ability to exercise free speech. See the Federalist Papers for a prime example of this.
And how, exactly, does one get their naval assets out of range of aircraft (the most common delivery system for anti-ship missiles) that can strike any spot on the planet? Are you suggesting that the navy has Star Blazers style ships that can fly through space or something?
Don't forget that most (not all) of those other stats represent single death incidents. 9/11 was a single incident with an unusually large death toll. You can't really compare 9/11 to say Bronchitis and say that terrorism would be equally likely to kill you over a 20 year period.
This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense.
I'm not so sure that this is true. There are a lot of things that a company is not allowed to ask a prospective candidate. Age/sexual preference/marital status/kids/(legal) drug use/etc just for starters. Those are things that could all easily be found in most people's social networking profiles.
From what I see, any company that engages in this kind of activity opens itself up to enormous risk of lawsuits. If they gain access to someone's facebook profile and then choose not to hire them, the prospective employee can point to information in their facebook profile that the employer should not have access to as the basis of a lawsuit. IMHO, the entire thing is a minor issue as it will sort itself out pretty quickly.
You're forgetting that spies don't get "traded', officers get traded back and forth and only the officers with official cover. Officers are spy handlers, the spies are the people who if caught get killed.
Yup! Just like Anna Chapman! Oh, wait...she got on the cover of Maxim magazine after being sent home instead...
As a citizen, you cannot be denied entry into the US.
Denying you the ability to leave is another matter, but even that can only be done under very limited circumstances since the ability to travel has been upheld as a right.
I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft.
Really? All of that just so my ten year old kid can fly his crappy $20 Air Hogs toy? What? You didn't think this through? Really? It didn't show...
The same Mythbusters where they interviewed an ER doctor that says that it does happen and they called the myth busted anyway? Or did they revisit that one due to being out of fresh ideas too?
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of shipping is generally about the same as the cost of sales tax. It evens out for the most part (free shipping comes from somewhere as well.) There is no inherent advantage to it. By being forced to collect out of state sales tax, these out of state entities are being told to do something by a state that they have no dealings with, gain no advantage from and without compensation.
The idea that this will even the playing field for local businesses is extremely short sighted. A lot of local businesses have websites or sell through sites like eBay. They will also be impacted as will businesses that might be thinking about going online to increase their sales even if their intent is to mainly sell locally.
There is a reason that companies like WalMart and Amazon are supporting this legislation. It will kill off their competition, including local businesses, many of which depend upon online sales to boost their revenue.
If states want to continue to push their (unconstitutional...it is just a way to levy sales tax on sales outside of the state) use taxes, then they already have that avenue. There is no need to burden and in many cases kill off businesses because they don't want to go the even uglier route of pushing their use taxes.
Depends on where you live. People who are even a short distance from a town (talking a couple of miles) are often limited to low speed DSL on very unreliable lines if they can even get that. It may not be "average" but it is a significant percentage of people.
And you still have yet to outline anything that is an actual crime with the possible exception of accessing the networking closet that was open to the public. A few civil matters, but no actual crimes.
If I won the lottery, I'd have a couple of stashes containing large amounts of cash that are not kept in a bank. My car might not be the first place that I'd choose to store it, but a secret compartment would be where I'd put it if I needed to move it from one location to another.
I do. Boobs!
A weapon is also a tool. They can be used for recreation (without killing,) to gather food (meat doesn't grow on trees or in the supermarket,) or to protect one's property or family (from threats on any number of legs.) Your personal feelings or enjoyment of those activities does not affect the legitimacy of them. I'm sure that other people don't enjoy or appreciate activities that you do, but that doesn't mean that we can automatically dismiss them as not being practical or legitimate.
Sure, they can be misused just like any other tool, but if we banned every tool that can be misused, we wouldn't have anything. *That* is the point of the car and baseball bat analogies.
Rather than the tool, your energy should be focused on the misuse of the tool. How do we minimize misuse? This isn't an easy question to answer as there are multiple scenarios to deal with. You have criminal misuse which commonly involves illegal guns. You have mishandling incidents. You have crimes of passion which commonly involve legally owned guns. And then you have the rare, but sensationalized cases of mass shootings (technically criminal misuse, but distinct enough to warrant its own category.) There isn't a one size fits all answer to these scenarios (getting rid of all of the guns isn't an option either legally or practically, so lets not even bother with that) so you need to tackle each one in turn. IMHO, Honest dialogue about the issue would start here. Having two sides that just promote extreme positions is never going to allow us to advance towards a real solution.
The concern is less about consumer boosters than comercial boosters which can have a much higher power output.
The smart play would be to quietly bury some code in the guidance system that causes the missile to explode in the tube if it targets and fires upon a friendly IFF beacon.
First of all, you are reading it wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant you any rights. It says that the Government cannot infringe on certain rights. This is a very important distinction.
Secondly, it has been said many times throughout our history, both in our courts and by our founders, that the ability to be anonymous is paramount to the ability to exercise free speech. See the Federalist Papers for a prime example of this.
December 21st my friend.
And how, exactly, does one get their naval assets out of range of aircraft (the most common delivery system for anti-ship missiles) that can strike any spot on the planet? Are you suggesting that the navy has Star Blazers style ships that can fly through space or something?
Don't forget that most (not all) of those other stats represent single death incidents. 9/11 was a single incident with an unusually large death toll. You can't really compare 9/11 to say Bronchitis and say that terrorism would be equally likely to kill you over a 20 year period.
Catholic schools teach lefties to write correctly using the penguin ruler method.
This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense.
I'm not so sure that this is true. There are a lot of things that a company is not allowed to ask a prospective candidate. Age/sexual preference/marital status/kids/(legal) drug use/etc just for starters. Those are things that could all easily be found in most people's social networking profiles.
From what I see, any company that engages in this kind of activity opens itself up to enormous risk of lawsuits. If they gain access to someone's facebook profile and then choose not to hire them, the prospective employee can point to information in their facebook profile that the employer should not have access to as the basis of a lawsuit. IMHO, the entire thing is a minor issue as it will sort itself out pretty quickly.
You're forgetting that spies don't get "traded', officers get traded back and forth and only the officers with official cover. Officers are spy handlers, the spies are the people who if caught get killed.
Yup! Just like Anna Chapman! Oh, wait...she got on the cover of Maxim magazine after being sent home instead...
Well, no...that would be silly...IBM hasn't made PCs for years.
So some definitions of marriage should never be changed because it is an ANCIENT construct given legitimacy by legal rulings?
The same way that they did before passports had chips in them? Namely by scanning the barcode and/or the magnetic strip.
No, you really don't.
If your goal is to reproduce the contents of the RFID chip, then you want it in the encrypted form. No need to decrypt it.
And considering that the encryption was broken in 2006, even if you do want the contents, you don't really need the MRZ.
As a citizen, you cannot be denied entry into the US.
Denying you the ability to leave is another matter, but even that can only be done under very limited circumstances since the ability to travel has been upheld as a right.
I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft.
Really? All of that just so my ten year old kid can fly his crappy $20 Air Hogs toy? What? You didn't think this through? Really? It didn't show...
The same Mythbusters where they interviewed an ER doctor that says that it does happen and they called the myth busted anyway? Or did they revisit that one due to being out of fresh ideas too?
You never saw Red Dawn, then?
I'm Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military?
Because the average 13 year old is too short to reach the pedals of a tank.
Yes, you can enlist in the military in the US at 17 with parental consent.