So you expect someone to open a business that ships you items for a fee to avoid the sales tax in your state? Why isn't the 'reshipper' considered a business and your state would expect tax revenue from them?
Also, gov't take a dim view of citizens that actively work to avoid paying their tax obligations.
Why don't you want to pay 'your fair share' of taxes to fund police, fire, education, etc?
When politicians designate new tax revenues as going towards some worthy cause (lottery profits for education, for example), rather than increasing the money spent on education, the lottery money instead offsets other tax revenues, freeing them up to be spent on politicians pet projects.
If the lottery generates $20M for education, the net result is that $20M in lottery money takes the place of $20M that used to come from property taxes.
Politicians expect you to think that the new revenue is in addition to what was already being spent, but it isn't.
Applying that logic, every dollar spent on police, fire departments, roadway construction, parks, sewage, water, etc, etc is lost money that could have gone towards education - think of the children!
True, but I lived in the US for a while in Michigan and they had a campaign to get people to declare out of state purchases on their tax form so the state could collect the tax
That is typical, most states have such a requirement, and few, if any, taxpayers comply - of course, some states like Delaware have no sales tax.
Then colleges and universities will accept students based on income potential, which will likely hurt women and people of color - are you sure you want to implement such a racist, sexist program?
Being fired for a mistake isn't 'for cause', if a person is fired and the worker files for unemployment the employer needs to prove, to the state agency, that the worker was let go for cause, which is different from not being able to do the job (which is what a mistake proves). 'Cause' is a willful choice an employee makes, to put it simply.
A lottery player that puts down $20 on 'scratchers' and gets $10 back will most likely spend their $10 in winnings on yet more 'scratchers', just as a slot machine player will keep plowing coins into the slots until they run out of coins, only a big win (not paid in coins) breaks that cycle.
Lottery players don't view their tickets as 'sane' investment choices, they view it as a diversion.
The low cost of a pack of cigarettes, being it is not a bulk purchase item, hides the high cost of the item from those not sufficiently advanced at budgeting.
What a non-sensical statement, it could only have been written by a person that has never had a smoking addiction or seriously thought about what it's like to have one.
Do you really imagine a two-pack-a-day smoker has no idea what $10-14/day adds up to over the course of a year? That's $3-5K/year.
Here's a little experiment you can try on your own: every day, for a month, pull $10 out of your wallet and burn it up. Do you find yourself unaware at the 'high cost' of that subtraction/expense? And you are lucky, you are only 'paying' $5/pack of cigarettes, in the real world they are a bit more expensive.
So a server that bounced around from part-time contractor to web hosting company and do on is MORE secure than a gov't server? Not the same, MORE. Not similar, MORE.
You can invent all the facts you want to try and defend HRC and her 'highly-secure' web server, but the same people that protect POTUS, VPOTUS and other high-level security target's email accounts are, I have to believe, at least EQUALLY competent to 'the guy that set up bill's email server after he left office.'
HRC is the first-ever cabinet member to have a political-appointee in the IT department, but he didn't manage HRC's private email server, he apparently got the cushy Federal IT job as a reward from HRC.
I would be shocked if she spent more than 45 minutes in the Oval Office, that's not a slam on the President or Ms. Smith, the President's daily schedule is managed down to the minute most days - to imagine the sitting President, any sitting President has half a day to fool around on a laptop repeating what hundreds of thousands of school children are doing is just silly.
Being led by the hand through a 'coding' exercise by a former google exec does not impart any meaningful insights into computer programming for a sitting President, or for that matter a classroom full of school children using a printed recipe to make a ball 'bounce' on screen.
That Kate Middleton's grandmother and great-aunt, along with thousands of others, worked at Blechtly Hall (sp) while Alan Turing and friends built their special-purpose computer doesn't make everyone that worked there a 'code-breaker'. There were countless people that supported those doing the actual breaking of code, and while their contribution helped, I don't think the security guards, the cafeteria staff, the secretaries, administrators, transcribers, etc would consider themselves code breakers. Over 99% of the workers at Bletchley Park had no idea who Turing was and how he proposed to crack the enigma - most code-breakers were toiling away trying to break enigma manually, without the aid of Turing's machine.
Oh, and can we agree that the term 'coder' is saved for those people that actually can sit down at a computer and, using the language of their choose, write a program without pre-printed instructions to accomplish some task, no matter how trivial?
Walking into a kitchen and following the directions on the side of a frozen burrito doesn't qualify someone as a 'chef', following a code.org 'packet' doesn't make one a coder.
Early programmers used coding firm, that were handed to typists, who created punch cards that were fed into the computer to tell the computer what to do.
Trivia point: once a collection of cards, representing either a dataset or a program were completed, they would draw a thick, dark diagonal line across the top of the 'deck' so the cards could quickly be put back in order if dropped.
As a student of computers in the late 70s/early 80s I was much more impressed with Grace Hopper and her famous 'nanosecond' (a 12" piece of wire that represented the distance electricity travelled in a nanosecond) and contributions to COBOL, a language that remains in use some 50 years after it's creation, than Ada Lovelace who "programmed" the first non-programmable computer.
HRC used a personal server exclusively for 100% of her work-related emails while Secretary of State - she never, in her entire tenure as Secretary logged into a state Department email account.
Comey sent (3x) drafts of mass departmental emails he planned to send to everyone in the FBI to his private gmail account, presumably to work on them at home gonvieniently.
These are in no way comparable 'offenses'.
I find it hard to believe HRC's private server more secure than the state department email server she should have used - it is simply non-sensical, State had a full-time staff working round-clock to secure their servers, HRC bounced her server from part-time contractor to a web hosting firm.
The IG report clearly states that HRC's email server was accessed by foreign agents - is it only a problem if the Russians hacked her server? Is it OK if it was the Chinese or North Koreans?
AS Secretary of State, as a former senator, HRC is responsible for determining what is and is. It classified (at any of the three levels) WITHOUT relying on 'markings'. That's like saying it was OK for her to rob a bank because no one told her it was illegal.
It's a childish defense for something that someone who was responsible to know better.
If costs go up, who can better afford the increased costs, Google/Facebook/Netflix, or the small startups looking to eat their lunch. Major Corp. can absorb compliance costs much better than under-funded startups.
Slashdot Mirror
So you expect someone to open a business that ships you items for a fee to avoid the sales tax in your state? Why isn't the 'reshipper' considered a business and your state would expect tax revenue from them?
Also, gov't take a dim view of citizens that actively work to avoid paying their tax obligations.
Why don't you want to pay 'your fair share' of taxes to fund police, fire, education, etc?
When politicians designate new tax revenues as going towards some worthy cause (lottery profits for education, for example), rather than increasing the money spent on education, the lottery money instead offsets other tax revenues, freeing them up to be spent on politicians pet projects.
If the lottery generates $20M for education, the net result is that $20M in lottery money takes the place of $20M that used to come from property taxes.
Politicians expect you to think that the new revenue is in addition to what was already being spent, but it isn't.
Applying that logic, every dollar spent on police, fire departments, roadway construction, parks, sewage, water, etc, etc is lost money that could have gone towards education - think of the children!
I don't recall seeing a single person trying to talk the voters out of it who wasn't a Democrat.
Christ, I need graph paper to figure that sentence out.
True, but I lived in the US for a while in Michigan and they had a campaign to get people to declare out of state purchases on their tax form so the state could collect the tax
That is typical, most states have such a requirement, and few, if any, taxpayers comply - of course, some states like Delaware have no sales tax.
Then colleges and universities will accept students based on income potential, which will likely hurt women and people of color - are you sure you want to implement such a racist, sexist program?
Ask the barista at Starbucks...
Being fired for a mistake isn't 'for cause', if a person is fired and the worker files for unemployment the employer needs to prove, to the state agency, that the worker was let go for cause, which is different from not being able to do the job (which is what a mistake proves). 'Cause' is a willful choice an employee makes, to put it simply.
A lottery player that puts down $20 on 'scratchers' and gets $10 back will most likely spend their $10 in winnings on yet more 'scratchers', just as a slot machine player will keep plowing coins into the slots until they run out of coins, only a big win (not paid in coins) breaks that cycle.
Lottery players don't view their tickets as 'sane' investment choices, they view it as a diversion.
The low cost of a pack of cigarettes, being it is not a bulk purchase item, hides the high cost of the item from those not sufficiently advanced at budgeting.
What a non-sensical statement, it could only have been written by a person that has never had a smoking addiction or seriously thought about what it's like to have one.
Do you really imagine a two-pack-a-day smoker has no idea what $10-14/day adds up to over the course of a year? That's $3-5K/year.
Here's a little experiment you can try on your own: every day, for a month, pull $10 out of your wallet and burn it up. Do you find yourself unaware at the 'high cost' of that subtraction/expense? And you are lucky, you are only 'paying' $5/pack of cigarettes, in the real world they are a bit more expensive.
Maybe it's because demand outstrips production by 18,000 fold?
On what planet does increased demand cause privation to slow down?
You fucking imbecile.
Right back at you.
Here is the email where HRC tells a staffer to delete markings and send classified material to her private email.
She instructed one staffer in how to strip off classification markings and send classified work emails to her private account.
We know this because the email she wrote was released to the public last year.
So a server that bounced around from part-time contractor to web hosting company and do on is MORE secure than a gov't server?
Not the same, MORE.
Not similar, MORE.
You can invent all the facts you want to try and defend HRC and her 'highly-secure' web server, but the same people that protect POTUS, VPOTUS and other high-level security target's email accounts are, I have to believe, at least EQUALLY competent to 'the guy that set up bill's email server after he left office.'
HRC is the first-ever cabinet member to have a political-appointee in the IT department, but he didn't manage HRC's private email server, he apparently got the cushy Federal IT job as a reward from HRC.
I would be shocked if she spent more than 45 minutes in the Oval Office, that's not a slam on the President or Ms. Smith, the President's daily schedule is managed down to the minute most days - to imagine the sitting President, any sitting President has half a day to fool around on a laptop repeating what hundreds of thousands of school children are doing is just silly.
Being led by the hand through a 'coding' exercise by a former google exec does not impart any meaningful insights into computer programming for a sitting President, or for that matter a classroom full of school children using a printed recipe to make a ball 'bounce' on screen.
That Kate Middleton's grandmother and great-aunt, along with thousands of others, worked at Blechtly Hall (sp) while Alan Turing and friends built their special-purpose computer doesn't make everyone that worked there a 'code-breaker'. There were countless people that supported those doing the actual breaking of code, and while their contribution helped, I don't think the security guards, the cafeteria staff, the secretaries, administrators, transcribers, etc would consider themselves code breakers. Over 99% of the workers at Bletchley Park had no idea who Turing was and how he proposed to crack the enigma - most code-breakers were toiling away trying to break enigma manually, without the aid of Turing's machine.
Oh, and can we agree that the term 'coder' is saved for those people that actually can sit down at a computer and, using the language of their choose, write a program without pre-printed instructions to accomplish some task, no matter how trivial?
Walking into a kitchen and following the directions on the side of a frozen burrito doesn't qualify someone as a 'chef', following a code.org 'packet' doesn't make one a coder.
You confuse 'coding' with 'keypunch'
Early programmers used coding firm, that were handed to typists, who created punch cards that were fed into the computer to tell the computer what to do.
Trivia point: once a collection of cards, representing either a dataset or a program were completed, they would draw a thick, dark diagonal line across the top of the 'deck' so the cards could quickly be put back in order if dropped.
As a student of computers in the late 70s/early 80s I was much more impressed with Grace Hopper and her famous 'nanosecond' (a 12" piece of wire that represented the distance electricity travelled in a nanosecond) and contributions to COBOL, a language that remains in use some 50 years after it's creation, than Ada Lovelace who "programmed" the first non-programmable computer.
The only group more exclusive than POTUS is that of those that set foot on the moon.
HRC used a personal server exclusively for 100% of her work-related emails while Secretary of State - she never, in her entire tenure as Secretary logged into a state Department email account.
Comey sent (3x) drafts of mass departmental emails he planned to send to everyone in the FBI to his private gmail account, presumably to work on them at home gonvieniently.
These are in no way comparable 'offenses'.
I find it hard to believe HRC's private server more secure than the state department email server she should have used - it is simply non-sensical, State had a full-time staff working round-clock to secure their servers, HRC bounced her server from part-time contractor to a web hosting firm.
The IG report clearly states that HRC's email server was accessed by foreign agents - is it only a problem if the Russians hacked her server? Is it OK if it was the Chinese or North Koreans?
AS Secretary of State, as a former senator, HRC is responsible for determining what is and is. It classified (at any of the three levels) WITHOUT relying on 'markings'. That's like saying it was OK for her to rob a bank because no one told her it was illegal.
It's a childish defense for something that someone who was responsible to know better.
If costs go up, who can better afford the increased costs, Google/Facebook/Netflix, or the small startups looking to eat their lunch. Major Corp. can absorb compliance costs much better than under-funded startups.
I'd like to see congress pass some Internet regulations and let the FTC enforce it.
That's exactly what Chairman Ajit Pai wants, he's even quoted saying that in the /. Summary.
Who lied about 'if you like your doctor...'
Who lied about 'if you like your insurance plan...'
Who lied about 'average families will see savings of $2,500/family'
Who lied about 'shovel-ready jobs'
I could go on, but those are some of the world-class whoppers from just the last administration.