So the answer from the Apple fanboi is to declare the comment "asinine" without any facts... In what way is the new iPhone superior to the HTC EVO? And how was the 3GS superior to the HD and the Incredible and the Touch Pro 2?
I'm surprised that more cell phones haven't implemented it. Maybe they have. Does anyone know if others are experimenting with it too?
Noise cancellation with dual microphones is about 60 years old, as a technology. My 18 month old HTC Touch Pro 2 has dual mics (for noise canceling), and my 3 year old Plantronics Bluetooth earpiece has dual mics for noise canceling. The difference is that the iPhone is finally catching up to what most other phones and communication devices have offered for the last few years, so rather than admit they were way behind the times they hype the crap out of it to make it seem like its iRevolutionary and thus Apple is seen as an innovator.
Reality is, Apple with dual mics is where Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, and most others were back in 2006. Apple's just really good at getting people to accept whatever they say at face value, even if it's just fluff and marketing glitz.
THIS. CANNOT. BE! Lord Jobs has told us this is iRevolutionary and iUnique and therefore it must not have iExisted before the new iPhone created it! HERETIC!
The new iPhone appears to get close to what the HTC EVO does right now; I know the 3GS phone was easily leapfrogged by the HD and the Incredible, and didn't even match the Touch Pro 2 (an older HTC design). Apple is once again taking a middle-of-the-pack position with its latest release, but by adding an "i" in front of it they can convince a good number of sheeple that it's iRevolutionary and that you iMust iHave it.
Wait, are you that mythical person that actually LIKES the music and movie selection aboard airplanes? I suppose next you're going to tell us the food is fine cuisine and the seats are spacious!
No, it's not on the $600 loss. It's on the $400 "gain" you now show. Liquidation of assets above $20,000 will be taxable, regardless of profit or loss.
Which has never been the case in the past. You could sell your personal assets and it wasn't considered income. Had an old car, unused bed, outdated computer? You could sell those without having to pay taxes because they were bought with taxed dollars. Now that's changing.
Can you sell your car right now without paying income tax on the proceeds? Yes, you can (now); in the future, maybe not. THAT'S the difference. Personal assets are assets you bought for your own use and enjoyment; reselling those assets used to be non-taxable as they were already bought with taxed income. Apparently the IRS wants to change the law so they can get another shot at that money...
Apparently you didn't follow; having $20K in assets is really not a lot. Most people have more than that. A car, a TV, some DVDs, a computer or two... Selling assets for $20,000 is possible for most people, but now the IRS will consider you selling your own assets as a "business" and will want its "fair share" of your sales.
You proved my point: you had to prove your innocence otherwise you were automatically guilty and subject to those fines and interest. If you didn't write back it would have been levy and lien time for you, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Unfortunately they're still not doing enough to go after the mega-corporations and their thousands of tax loopholes.
The people who are given the millions and billions of dollars by those same corporations and groups are the same people who write the tax laws to create those tax loopholes. It's called payback - you put your money down, you get your loophole.
Sorry, but it is. I've dealt with it 3 times in the past, where I was threatened with liens and levies unless I could prove that I was correct. As far as the IRS was concerned, I did not properly report my LLC income (even though it had been legally shut down the year prior to the year in contention) and I had 30 days to respond or face levies. Even had an IRS Revenue Officer tell me, my lawyer, and and my CPA straight out that just because we had copies of my tax returns for the proper year, and just because we had a certified return receipt for the timely filing of that tax return it did not mean we actually mailed it; we could have mailed ANYTHING to them.
.
With the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you to show the IRS is in error, not the other way around.
Obviously you've never really dealt with the IRS! If they believe you had more income than you reported, then you did. It's up to you to prove you didn't, not up to the IRS to prove you did. They can seize every dollar you have, and legally lock down every asset you have (so you cannot sell your car or your house, or even get a loan against either) until you prove you are innocent.
.
I'm still trying to get the IRS to understand the 1065 they received in 2008 after I shut down my LLC in 2007 was the final 1065 and for the tax year 2007. The IRS is convinced I filed that 1065 for the 2008 tax year and never filed for 2007. And again, it's ME who has to prove I am right and innocent, not the IRS that has to prove they are correct.
What will probably happen soon after the 1099K is in force will be that the IRS will disallow any business deductions for which you have not filed a 1099K, meaning you cannot deduct those overseas purchases, with the end result being reduced trade and a further collapse of our economy. And you'll file a 1099K for EVERY expense (note that right now you HAVE to file for any individual you paid over $600, but you can still file a 1099 for someone paid less than that amount; it's voluntary under the $600 limit, mandatory above). Perfect means of tracking every dollar spent by businesses large and small, so as to ease the transition to a VAT.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, Google does not ban me from using any ad engine I like on my web pages, even when rendering them inside Chrome.
Notice how the mouse sensitivity is set at 80-year-old-grandmother level on Mac's?
You know, there is a preference panel for that...
More importantly, is there an app for that?
So the answer from the Apple fanboi is to declare the comment "asinine" without any facts... In what way is the new iPhone superior to the HTC EVO? And how was the 3GS superior to the HD and the Incredible and the Touch Pro 2?
I'm surprised that more cell phones haven't implemented it. Maybe they have. Does anyone know if others are experimenting with it too?
Noise cancellation with dual microphones is about 60 years old, as a technology. My 18 month old HTC Touch Pro 2 has dual mics (for noise canceling), and my 3 year old Plantronics Bluetooth earpiece has dual mics for noise canceling. The difference is that the iPhone is finally catching up to what most other phones and communication devices have offered for the last few years, so rather than admit they were way behind the times they hype the crap out of it to make it seem like its iRevolutionary and thus Apple is seen as an innovator.
Reality is, Apple with dual mics is where Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, and most others were back in 2006. Apple's just really good at getting people to accept whatever they say at face value, even if it's just fluff and marketing glitz.
THIS. CANNOT. BE! Lord Jobs has told us this is iRevolutionary and iUnique and therefore it must not have iExisted before the new iPhone created it! HERETIC!
The new iPhone appears to get close to what the HTC EVO does right now; I know the 3GS phone was easily leapfrogged by the HD and the Incredible, and didn't even match the Touch Pro 2 (an older HTC design). Apple is once again taking a middle-of-the-pack position with its latest release, but by adding an "i" in front of it they can convince a good number of sheeple that it's iRevolutionary and that you iMust iHave it.
Their hiring practices do not match with the EEOC; they care about competence, not a properly racially/gender/sexual orientation balanced workforce.
Embrace and Extend...
They're so behind the times. They should know by now that video killed the radio star.
This is slashdot; science and logic have no place here!
Wait, are you that mythical person that actually LIKES the music and movie selection aboard airplanes? I suppose next you're going to tell us the food is fine cuisine and the seats are spacious!
No, it's not on the $600 loss. It's on the $400 "gain" you now show. Liquidation of assets above $20,000 will be taxable, regardless of profit or loss.
Which has never been the case in the past. You could sell your personal assets and it wasn't considered income. Had an old car, unused bed, outdated computer? You could sell those without having to pay taxes because they were bought with taxed dollars. Now that's changing.
Can you sell your car right now without paying income tax on the proceeds? Yes, you can (now); in the future, maybe not. THAT'S the difference. Personal assets are assets you bought for your own use and enjoyment; reselling those assets used to be non-taxable as they were already bought with taxed income. Apparently the IRS wants to change the law so they can get another shot at that money...
Apparently you didn't follow; having $20K in assets is really not a lot. Most people have more than that. A car, a TV, some DVDs, a computer or two... Selling assets for $20,000 is possible for most people, but now the IRS will consider you selling your own assets as a "business" and will want its "fair share" of your sales.
You proved my point: you had to prove your innocence otherwise you were automatically guilty and subject to those fines and interest. If you didn't write back it would have been levy and lien time for you, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Selling ones personal assets has NEVER been construed as a business. Apparently the IRS now feels otherwise.
To the State, if it's going to be re-registered, sure. Not to the IRS and not to the Federal Government.
If we had a $10 per joint tax, and 100 million people lit up every day, we'd reduce our national deficit by about 20%. Not much at all, really...
Unfortunately they're still not doing enough to go after the mega-corporations and their thousands of tax loopholes.
The people who are given the millions and billions of dollars by those same corporations and groups are the same people who write the tax laws to create those tax loopholes. It's called payback - you put your money down, you get your loophole.
Sestak criminal? Do you know something we don't?
You're right; Sestak didn't do anything criminal. The White House did.
With the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you to show the IRS is in error, not the other way around.
I'm still trying to get the IRS to understand the 1065 they received in 2008 after I shut down my LLC in 2007 was the final 1065 and for the tax year 2007. The IRS is convinced I filed that 1065 for the 2008 tax year and never filed for 2007. And again, it's ME who has to prove I am right and innocent, not the IRS that has to prove they are correct.
What will probably happen soon after the 1099K is in force will be that the IRS will disallow any business deductions for which you have not filed a 1099K, meaning you cannot deduct those overseas purchases, with the end result being reduced trade and a further collapse of our economy. And you'll file a 1099K for EVERY expense (note that right now you HAVE to file for any individual you paid over $600, but you can still file a 1099 for someone paid less than that amount; it's voluntary under the $600 limit, mandatory above). Perfect means of tracking every dollar spent by businesses large and small, so as to ease the transition to a VAT.
Try China...;)