Oh, so this isn't sort of like the Wii U controller then. I thought that this was sort of like that controller Nintendo had made, so, yes, this is definitely confusing as I was expecting something that could be hooked up to a PC or console.
Sure it does, it makes it that less efficient as they have to either hire that many more lobbyists or have their lobbyists do that much more traveling, in either case it's far less convenient.
Scheduling is why, because things are done EST and EDT as appropriate, they're finished for the day hours before we get out of work, at least if the politicians were in their home districts, there would be a bit more pressure to have things scheduled appropriately..
Of course they can be replaced with telecommuting and conference calling.
Ultimately, as a resident of WA, I'm in favor of this, the capital being located where it is, makes it incredibly inconvenient for me to observe what goes on there or meet with my members of congress. With this, I'd at least know that most of the time they're in the same state as I am and can more easily contact them.
And those taxes are a tiny fraction of what the state is eligible to collect on those transactions. In extreme cases you're talking about as much as 30% of the purchase price and most of that being written off by the businesses. In most cases the shipping total comes out to a small fraction of the cost of the total purchase.
So yeah, the amount the state is getting from that is negligible.
That's a fair point, but there's more to it than that. A lot of these mail order and online places are located in places where rent and labor is cheap or receive subsidies for being located there. What's more, by only having a couple of warehouses, they save a ton of money.
Which is why the total cost is often times the same or less. And some businesses like BestBuy will charge the same amount of money whether you buy in store or they ship it to you, part of that is because shelf space is quite expensive compared with warehouse space.
As far as in state infrastructure goes, that's infrastructure that the buyer uses, not the retailer, it's called a use tax for a reason, it's use that the buyer gets out of the infrastructure. And no, it's perfectly fair, the buyer uses it regardless of where he or she buys from.
Umm, you do realize that businesses generally get to write off a lot of the, right? And these are businesses that don't have a presence in the state anyways so there's nothing to write off. So, it means precisely zip to us here in WA that a company has a warehouse in CA or TX, as those places don't remit any of it to our government to pay to run the state.
If you're going to comment, could you at least do some research?
This has been law of the land for a very long time. The Federal government can most certainly enforce the right of the states to tax their own citizens. What would be unconstitutional would be differing tax rates for in and out of state retailers. In all cases I know of, the sales and use taxes are the same, what this legislation would do would enforce the retailers to collect, remit and report the taxes that are already owed by the citizens of the state.
And, the Federal government doing the forcing, is certainly constitutional.
Up until this point, they've had a competitive advantage over stores with an in state presence that do have to charge the sales tax, people self reporting makes no sense as it's entirely unfair to expect people to keep track of that many small purchases. And the shops already have accountants and billing software that handles that sort of thing.
The point of use tax is that it makes it harder to evade sales tax by charging taxes on all your purchases. Just because a purchase comes from out of state, doesn't make the things one uses in the state any less expensive nor does it mean that one should be able to avoid paying taxes in that fashion. In the past it was less of an issue because it would take weeks to get things via mail order, but these days, people do so regularly.
Yeah, unfortunately, you're correct. On the rare occasion where I go to a concert, I bring ear plugs. It's no good seeing a great act, if doing so means that you damage your hearing. And some of those bands play extremely loud.
The point also is that for those who have lost hearing for any reason, to realize that what people are saying isn't necessarily what you're hearing.
Oh, please, enough women buy into that crap without needing men to help them buy into it. It wouldn't get any coverage without at least some support from women.
They'll likely end up being sued by her and losing, even though it's very clear that the way in which she chose to deal with the quasi-legitimate complaint was completely inappropriate. What would have happened, had she misheard what they were saying? I remember years back having somebody complain about something he thought I had said, it turns out that he had severe hearing loss and had chosen to think I said something that I hadn't said.
She was fired over the way in which she handled it. As an evangelist, she is probably being held to a higher standard than other folks, but she should have known that. She could have handled it in a way that at least allowed the individuals to apologize and or explain, tweeting it without even having her facts straight, is hardly conducive to building an inclusive community.
She also had the opportunity to just ignore it, which is what she should have done if she couldn't handle it in a mature way. Yes, it would have been less good than dealing with it, but as it stands, she's just another data point on the "why we shouldn't trust women" board.
The problem is that she handled it in an extremely immature fashion. I'm not necessarily saying that she should have let it go, but posting the pictures online without giving them a chance to explain, is rather poor form for an evangelist. And if she couldn't handle it with more grace, she should have left it alone, this kind of immature and self righteous behavior is not going to further women's rights, all it does is send the message that if you offend somebody, for any reason, you can lose your job. Not helpful. What's more, it sounds like it was just one joke about dongles and she was doing it for reasons other than being offended.
Or at least that's how I read her blog, it's pretty clear she was trying to advocate for people that weren't in the room at the time and without being asked to do so. What's more, she could very easily have caused her employer to receive a nasty libel suit as a result of this.
I tend to use noscript default to allow, requestpolicy and ghostery, privacy is one issue, but another issue is security, how do any of these sites know what sort of security holes the code they're linking to has? What's more, it's completely transparent to the end user unless they're blocking all that crap.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that if a foreigner goes to the US on vacation or to transfer flights, the US has jurisdiction during the period where the individual is in the US. It does not however mean that the US gets to try the person for things that are on foreign territory where there's a court they could have used.
It would be a real mess if we had to consult with experts in international law any time we wanted to do something, in case it were illegal in some other part of the world.
That's unfortunate, I've wanted that for years, but none of the banks and credit unions I do business with offer them. But, then again, I've rarely had problems with this, so it's probably not as useful as it seems. And retailers really shouldn't be storing credit card numbers past the point where they're used.
Really, that's the correct solution, retailers shouldn't be permitted to store these numbers for longer than it takes them to bill the card. They get a transaction ID for it, which is all they really need.
Check21 is why nobody with any sense uses checks anymore. The inability to get the check back after it's been processed makes it a lot more of a PITA to deal with forgeries than it used to be.
But, AFAIK, the Bureau of Engraving has been directed to change that because of a lawsuit over that very issue. I'm not sure when the change is supposed to take place, but as far as I know the USD will be coming in different sizes in the future.
Which for me is kind of a shame as it makes sorting a bit harder, but it's completely necessary.
This has always been the case though. The US permits people to take and bring as much cash and financial instruments as they like, but if it's over the threshold they expect you to declare it. Nothing is new about this, except that the rule would more clearly relate to BTC.
And BTW, money laundering is illegal, so if you're doing that for any reason, then you are a criminal, not like a criminal.
There's nothing wrong with Iran suing somebody in US court for that, they would likely get laughed out of court, but that would be their right to do so. The problem is if they sue in an Iranian court for instructions provided in the US on a US based website.
The same is the case in this instance, the French could have taken it to court in the US to get those names had they wished, but chose to use their own courts. And yes, that would be a mess if everybody was simultaneously under the jurisdiction of ever other court in the world, if they choose to create a website.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so this isn't sort of like the Wii U controller then. I thought that this was sort of like that controller Nintendo had made, so, yes, this is definitely confusing as I was expecting something that could be hooked up to a PC or console.
Sure it does, it makes it that less efficient as they have to either hire that many more lobbyists or have their lobbyists do that much more traveling, in either case it's far less convenient.
Scheduling is why, because things are done EST and EDT as appropriate, they're finished for the day hours before we get out of work, at least if the politicians were in their home districts, there would be a bit more pressure to have things scheduled appropriately..
Of course they can be replaced with telecommuting and conference calling.
Ultimately, as a resident of WA, I'm in favor of this, the capital being located where it is, makes it incredibly inconvenient for me to observe what goes on there or meet with my members of congress. With this, I'd at least know that most of the time they're in the same state as I am and can more easily contact them.
And those taxes are a tiny fraction of what the state is eligible to collect on those transactions. In extreme cases you're talking about as much as 30% of the purchase price and most of that being written off by the businesses. In most cases the shipping total comes out to a small fraction of the cost of the total purchase.
So yeah, the amount the state is getting from that is negligible.
That's a fair point, but there's more to it than that. A lot of these mail order and online places are located in places where rent and labor is cheap or receive subsidies for being located there. What's more, by only having a couple of warehouses, they save a ton of money.
Which is why the total cost is often times the same or less. And some businesses like BestBuy will charge the same amount of money whether you buy in store or they ship it to you, part of that is because shelf space is quite expensive compared with warehouse space.
As far as in state infrastructure goes, that's infrastructure that the buyer uses, not the retailer, it's called a use tax for a reason, it's use that the buyer gets out of the infrastructure. And no, it's perfectly fair, the buyer uses it regardless of where he or she buys from.
Umm, you do realize that businesses generally get to write off a lot of the, right? And these are businesses that don't have a presence in the state anyways so there's nothing to write off. So, it means precisely zip to us here in WA that a company has a warehouse in CA or TX, as those places don't remit any of it to our government to pay to run the state.
If you're going to comment, could you at least do some research?
This has been law of the land for a very long time. The Federal government can most certainly enforce the right of the states to tax their own citizens. What would be unconstitutional would be differing tax rates for in and out of state retailers. In all cases I know of, the sales and use taxes are the same, what this legislation would do would enforce the retailers to collect, remit and report the taxes that are already owed by the citizens of the state.
And, the Federal government doing the forcing, is certainly constitutional.
Not true, if you're an Oregonian that passes into Washington, you show your ID and they're not supposed to charge you any sales tax.
Where else should it be placed?
Up until this point, they've had a competitive advantage over stores with an in state presence that do have to charge the sales tax, people self reporting makes no sense as it's entirely unfair to expect people to keep track of that many small purchases. And the shops already have accountants and billing software that handles that sort of thing.
The point of use tax is that it makes it harder to evade sales tax by charging taxes on all your purchases. Just because a purchase comes from out of state, doesn't make the things one uses in the state any less expensive nor does it mean that one should be able to avoid paying taxes in that fashion. In the past it was less of an issue because it would take weeks to get things via mail order, but these days, people do so regularly.
Yeah, unfortunately, you're correct. On the rare occasion where I go to a concert, I bring ear plugs. It's no good seeing a great act, if doing so means that you damage your hearing. And some of those bands play extremely loud.
The point also is that for those who have lost hearing for any reason, to realize that what people are saying isn't necessarily what you're hearing.
Oh, please, enough women buy into that crap without needing men to help them buy into it. It wouldn't get any coverage without at least some support from women.
Classic is relative, but yeah, I'd say Sega Master, Atari 2600 and NES as the newest to really deserve that title.
They'll likely end up being sued by her and losing, even though it's very clear that the way in which she chose to deal with the quasi-legitimate complaint was completely inappropriate. What would have happened, had she misheard what they were saying? I remember years back having somebody complain about something he thought I had said, it turns out that he had severe hearing loss and had chosen to think I said something that I hadn't said.
That's true, and unfortunately, the ones that get the headlines tend to be misogynistic and generally misanthropic.
She was fired over the way in which she handled it. As an evangelist, she is probably being held to a higher standard than other folks, but she should have known that. She could have handled it in a way that at least allowed the individuals to apologize and or explain, tweeting it without even having her facts straight, is hardly conducive to building an inclusive community.
She also had the opportunity to just ignore it, which is what she should have done if she couldn't handle it in a mature way. Yes, it would have been less good than dealing with it, but as it stands, she's just another data point on the "why we shouldn't trust women" board.
The problem is that she handled it in an extremely immature fashion. I'm not necessarily saying that she should have let it go, but posting the pictures online without giving them a chance to explain, is rather poor form for an evangelist. And if she couldn't handle it with more grace, she should have left it alone, this kind of immature and self righteous behavior is not going to further women's rights, all it does is send the message that if you offend somebody, for any reason, you can lose your job. Not helpful. What's more, it sounds like it was just one joke about dongles and she was doing it for reasons other than being offended.
Or at least that's how I read her blog, it's pretty clear she was trying to advocate for people that weren't in the room at the time and without being asked to do so. What's more, she could very easily have caused her employer to receive a nasty libel suit as a result of this.
I tend to use noscript default to allow, requestpolicy and ghostery, privacy is one issue, but another issue is security, how do any of these sites know what sort of security holes the code they're linking to has? What's more, it's completely transparent to the end user unless they're blocking all that crap.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that if a foreigner goes to the US on vacation or to transfer flights, the US has jurisdiction during the period where the individual is in the US. It does not however mean that the US gets to try the person for things that are on foreign territory where there's a court they could have used.
It would be a real mess if we had to consult with experts in international law any time we wanted to do something, in case it were illegal in some other part of the world.
Interesting, hadn't thought of using it to quash autorenews.
That's unfortunate, I've wanted that for years, but none of the banks and credit unions I do business with offer them. But, then again, I've rarely had problems with this, so it's probably not as useful as it seems. And retailers really shouldn't be storing credit card numbers past the point where they're used.
Really, that's the correct solution, retailers shouldn't be permitted to store these numbers for longer than it takes them to bill the card. They get a transaction ID for it, which is all they really need.
Check21 is why nobody with any sense uses checks anymore. The inability to get the check back after it's been processed makes it a lot more of a PITA to deal with forgeries than it used to be.
They take their pay in singles.
But, AFAIK, the Bureau of Engraving has been directed to change that because of a lawsuit over that very issue. I'm not sure when the change is supposed to take place, but as far as I know the USD will be coming in different sizes in the future.
Which for me is kind of a shame as it makes sorting a bit harder, but it's completely necessary.
This has always been the case though. The US permits people to take and bring as much cash and financial instruments as they like, but if it's over the threshold they expect you to declare it. Nothing is new about this, except that the rule would more clearly relate to BTC.
And BTW, money laundering is illegal, so if you're doing that for any reason, then you are a criminal, not like a criminal.
There's nothing wrong with Iran suing somebody in US court for that, they would likely get laughed out of court, but that would be their right to do so. The problem is if they sue in an Iranian court for instructions provided in the US on a US based website.
The same is the case in this instance, the French could have taken it to court in the US to get those names had they wished, but chose to use their own courts. And yes, that would be a mess if everybody was simultaneously under the jurisdiction of ever other court in the world, if they choose to create a website.