I'd like to add this advice: This year, when I did my taxes, I had online access with all of the institutions from which I had investment income, and TurboTax let me just input my login information for those sites and it imported all the relevant numbers right over. So, I didn't even really need to wait for the 1099's to come.
Of course, most of you wouldn't trust TurboTax enough to give it that information, so YMMV.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that you have to pay 90% of what you owed the last year in order to prevent penalties.
I'd like to know as well. I'll have to check when I get home, but this year I owed them about $800, which I believe was more than 10% of what I should have paid them total over last year, and TurboTax didn't list any penalty line. Of course, in my case, it was a W-2 job, so my employer chose the deduction based on an IRS-approved formula and on what I told them.
The more appropriate response will be for Office to be looked upon in the same way that a compiler is, something that just a few people, specialists, need to have a copy of, while everyone else can make use of much simpler web-based alternatives.
You can compile code online, and most people really don't need to do otherwise?
Goddamn, my head is hurting from all the analogies, bad analogies, and bad counter-analogies being thrown back and forth here.
But to dignify this one:
No, it's not illegal to use the light shining out of someone's window to read. But in most cases (like the kind implied by your example), if you're close enough to use it for reading, you're already trespassing.
Well, that's true, but you can beg the question in the other direction, too. For example, if the "question" is the matter of whether the kid is a criminal, you can't use his own trustworthiness as evidence for the conclusion. The problem here was that they refused to believe even statements that did *not* rely on his trustworthiness i.e. that they could independently verify. If you don't take his word that DST happened on a different day this year, fine. If you won't believe your own internal school district newsletter, well...
To be honest, a lot of the time in school, especially in second grade, I felt exactly this way. It's like, whatever I did was wrong. I think it seriously tainted my outlook on the world, with effects that persist to this day. And before you accuse me of making whiny excuses, I'm consciously trying to "retrain my neural network", for lack of a better term, and I don't intend to use that excuse to justify further failures.
But seriously: track that kid down. Whatever the cost. He deserves vindication. This isn't a matter of which building is best. (Though I'd recommend the geodesic dome article on Wikipedia for why they're not used.) It's a matter of whether you've taught this kid to suppress his own reason.
Well, keep in mind, they had to pull the LUDs (local usage details) to do this. That means they had to go through the phone company. And what could have been the phone company? VERIZON! So any hope at understanding simple logic, was gone.
This is great! Google has automated a way to look at videos and determine if they match a video that's already in existence and under copyright! That means they've solved a hard AI problem. I hope some day they open source their solution.
I don't want to diminish the significance of this event, but hundreds, possibly even thousands of people die in equally tragic human-created events every day -- most of them don't even make the news. Most of them are in other countries -- Darfur anybody?
I think the difference is the unpredictability. That is, if you don't want to die in genocide, stay out of Sudan. If you don't want to be eaten by sharks, stay out of the water. If you don't want to die in a hurricane, stay away from the coasts. If you don't want to be gunned down in an ordinary classroom, ____ ?
Kinda like when I was installing Ubuntu. Could I forsee it might not install? Sure. Could I forsee there would be complications that would suck a lot of time? Sure. Could I forsee it might lead me to having to format a hard drive it installed to? Sure. Could I forsee I might not have all the functionality in Windows? Sure. Could I forsee that it would lock me out of my computer entirely until I could find a separate, high-speed internet connection and CD burner and then use a separate computer to get help while I tried to troubleshoot through a Live CD? No, there was no reason to.
Heh, that's what they said about most licensed merchandise: "Hey, they want you to go see Adam Sandler's new move Stapler, so they give away Stapler-themed T-shirts!" But now people actually *pay* for those kinds of things, and record companies complain about lost revenue from copyright infringement of their music videos! Go fig.
You know, for someone as far away from me ideologically as you are, we agree way too much.
Re:how about an affordable one instead.
on
$90,000 103in HDTV
·
· Score: 1
I can't answer that, but I can guarantee you this: In less than five years, there will be at least one sob story in the media about a poor family struggling to get by, which receives some form of welfare, and which happens to own one of these things.
Hell, we already have a story (firstborn) about a family making $48,000/year in rural Georgia with a $327 monthly car payment on a car much newer than mine, qualifying for health care assistance.
Why does the database system fulfill illegal search requests?
Because it's not a lawyer and doesn't have the information to know who's breaking the law by what request. (Note, those are separate reasons.)
Do those who have been searching illegally still have access? If so, why?
Yes, because no one knows yet they did an illegal search and even if they did, the university would have too much to gain by keeping their business.
What punishment exists for violating the regulations on what searches are allowed?
A stern warning not to do it again.
How much of the data stored on each student do these lenders actually have legitimate reason to know?
In the sense that you mean it, very little. In the sense that the law allows, more than you're comfortable with. In the sense that the university has permitted the data to be accessed, all of it.
What hoops does a lender have to jump through to get access to the database?
Must have a business relationship with the university that is profitable to the latter.
What's funny is, there are people who still think of universities as being "non-profit, therefore for the public good" places. Sorry kids, someone who whores out your data for quick cash isn't "non-profit"; they simply don't distribute the profits to shareholders.
You're being a little naive. If an employer did a "quid pro quo" whereby employees perform sexual favors in exchange for perks (raises, promotions, bonuses, etc.), that would qualify as sexual harassment, even and especially if the employees were okay with it. In fact, many employees are more than happy to go along with such arrangements, but the employer can still be sued for it. "Consent" doesn't have much to do with it.
Electronic money transfers aren't expensive in the US. Wiring is, but that is not what most electronic transfers are.
(To be honest, I think the GGP was just trying to "folksy-up" his writing. Cause, you, see, most/.ers typically think of checks when they think of money transfers, right? Oh wait, that would be Time magazine's demographic.)
Chill, I'm on your side on this one. I was just questioning whether, under current OSHA and sexual harassment guidelines (which of course I find ridiculous), a brothel can be classified as having "good working conditions":-P
Aha! You're the guy I was thinking of when I said this:
Oh, I basically agree, but this opens up a new can of worms: it commits you to:
a) separating businesses based on how much government they use, and taxing them differently (at least to a coarse approximation)
b) taxing the economy *only* at the rate required for the government to provide the services needed for the economy to exist.
a) isn't so bitter a pill to swallow, but b) means much, much lower taxes, since very little tax revenue is spend on ensuring the necessities for the modern economy to exist, at least when honestly appraised. For virtually every government program, you can find a country that does without it, or has much less of it. (I can't sell items on ebay unless the government has a presence in Iraq? Come on!)
In your case, those things are all great, but a) most of them aren't even paid for through IRS-collected moneys and b) make up a sliver of all tax revenues.
Hey, I would *love* to only pay taxes that cover defense, violent/property crimes enforcement, and courts. Where do I sign up.
(One exception is your bit about the gas station attendant being able to read. Aside from being a double-counting, one trick is to only use competent oil changers... you know, like you do with every other product.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to add this advice: This year, when I did my taxes, I had online access with all of the institutions from which I had investment income, and TurboTax let me just input my login information for those sites and it imported all the relevant numbers right over. So, I didn't even really need to wait for the 1099's to come.
Of course, most of you wouldn't trust TurboTax enough to give it that information, so YMMV.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that you have to pay 90% of what you owed the last year in order to prevent penalties.
I'd like to know as well. I'll have to check when I get home, but this year I owed them about $800, which I believe was more than 10% of what I should have paid them total over last year, and TurboTax didn't list any penalty line. Of course, in my case, it was a W-2 job, so my employer chose the deduction based on an IRS-approved formula and on what I told them.
I think the only one who done speak Yiddish is Colin Powell.
Yes, that joke is horribly offensive, but it makes up for it by being really funny.
So they're taxing the World of Warcraft pig farms already?
The more appropriate response will be for Office to be looked upon in the same way that a compiler is, something that just a few people, specialists, need to have a copy of, while everyone else can make use of much simpler web-based alternatives.
You can compile code online, and most people really don't need to do otherwise?
*feels disconnected from the modern world*
Okay, make that, "you're already close enough to looking like a peeping tom". :-P
Goddamn, my head is hurting from all the analogies, bad analogies, and bad counter-analogies being thrown back and forth here.
But to dignify this one:
No, it's not illegal to use the light shining out of someone's window to read. But in most cases (like the kind implied by your example), if you're close enough to use it for reading, you're already trespassing.
Oh, no no no, you see, if that was before '05, that was a *different* company. Wikipedia says so, see?
It's not as bad as the Washington Biological Survey, abbreviated as "Wash. Biol. Surv.", which people may mistake as animal cooking instructions.
Well, that's true, but you can beg the question in the other direction, too. For example, if the "question" is the matter of whether the kid is a criminal, you can't use his own trustworthiness as evidence for the conclusion. The problem here was that they refused to believe even statements that did *not* rely on his trustworthiness i.e. that they could independently verify. If you don't take his word that DST happened on a different day this year, fine. If you won't believe your own internal school district newsletter, well ...
To be honest, a lot of the time in school, especially in second grade, I felt exactly this way. It's like, whatever I did was wrong. I think it seriously tainted my outlook on the world, with effects that persist to this day. And before you accuse me of making whiny excuses, I'm consciously trying to "retrain my neural network", for lack of a better term, and I don't intend to use that excuse to justify further failures.
But seriously: track that kid down. Whatever the cost. He deserves vindication. This isn't a matter of which building is best. (Though I'd recommend the geodesic dome article on Wikipedia for why they're not used.) It's a matter of whether you've taught this kid to suppress his own reason.
Well, keep in mind, they had to pull the LUDs (local usage details) to do this. That means they had to go through the phone company. And what could have been the phone company? VERIZON! So any hope at understanding simple logic, was gone.
My history in K-12 is that most school staff (secretaries, teachers, administrators) really are that impervious to logic.
This is great! Google has automated a way to look at videos and determine if they match a video that's already in existence and under copyright! That means they've solved a hard AI problem. I hope some day they open source their solution.
I don't want to diminish the significance of this event, but hundreds, possibly even thousands of people die in equally tragic human-created events every day -- most of them don't even make the news. Most of them are in other countries -- Darfur anybody?
I think the difference is the unpredictability. That is, if you don't want to die in genocide, stay out of Sudan. If you don't want to be eaten by sharks, stay out of the water. If you don't want to die in a hurricane, stay away from the coasts. If you don't want to be gunned down in an ordinary classroom, ____ ?
Kinda like when I was installing Ubuntu. Could I forsee it might not install? Sure. Could I forsee there would be complications that would suck a lot of time? Sure. Could I forsee it might lead me to having to format a hard drive it installed to? Sure. Could I forsee I might not have all the functionality in Windows? Sure. Could I forsee that it would lock me out of my computer entirely until I could find a separate, high-speed internet connection and CD burner and then use a separate computer to get help while I tried to troubleshoot through a Live CD? No, there was no reason to.
Heh, that's what they said about most licensed merchandise: "Hey, they want you to go see Adam Sandler's new move Stapler, so they give away Stapler-themed T-shirts!" But now people actually *pay* for those kinds of things, and record companies complain about lost revenue from copyright infringement of their music videos! Go fig.
You know, for someone as far away from me ideologically as you are, we agree way too much.
I can't answer that, but I can guarantee you this: In less than five years, there will be at least one sob story in the media about a poor family struggling to get by, which receives some form of welfare, and which happens to own one of these things.
Hell, we already have a story (firstborn) about a family making $48,000/year in rural Georgia with a $327 monthly car payment on a car much newer than mine, qualifying for health care assistance.
I think I know the answers to some of those:
Why does the database system fulfill illegal search requests?
Because it's not a lawyer and doesn't have the information to know who's breaking the law by what request. (Note, those are separate reasons.)
Do those who have been searching illegally still have access? If so, why?
Yes, because no one knows yet they did an illegal search and even if they did, the university would have too much to gain by keeping their business.
What punishment exists for violating the regulations on what searches are allowed?
A stern warning not to do it again.
How much of the data stored on each student do these lenders actually have legitimate reason to know?
In the sense that you mean it, very little. In the sense that the law allows, more than you're comfortable with. In the sense that the university has permitted the data to be accessed, all of it.
What hoops does a lender have to jump through to get access to the database?
Must have a business relationship with the university that is profitable to the latter.
What's funny is, there are people who still think of universities as being "non-profit, therefore for the public good" places. Sorry kids, someone who whores out your data for quick cash isn't "non-profit"; they simply don't distribute the profits to shareholders.
You're being a little naive. If an employer did a "quid pro quo" whereby employees perform sexual favors in exchange for perks (raises, promotions, bonuses, etc.), that would qualify as sexual harassment, even and especially if the employees were okay with it. In fact, many employees are more than happy to go along with such arrangements, but the employer can still be sued for it. "Consent" doesn't have much to do with it.
Yes, just like a forest is a glorified bunch of trees.
Electronic money transfers aren't expensive in the US. Wiring is, but that is not what most electronic transfers are.
/.ers typically think of checks when they think of money transfers, right? Oh wait, that would be Time magazine's demographic.)
(To be honest, I think the GGP was just trying to "folksy-up" his writing. Cause, you, see, most
Chill, I'm on your side on this one. I was just questioning whether, under current OSHA and sexual harassment guidelines (which of course I find ridiculous), a brothel can be classified as having "good working conditions" :-P
Aha! You're the guy I was thinking of when I said this:
... you know, like you do with every other product.)
Oh, I basically agree, but this opens up a new can of worms: it commits you to:
a) separating businesses based on how much government they use, and taxing them differently (at least to a coarse approximation)
b) taxing the economy *only* at the rate required for the government to provide the services needed for the economy to exist.
a) isn't so bitter a pill to swallow, but b) means much, much lower taxes, since very little tax revenue is spend on ensuring the necessities for the modern economy to exist, at least when honestly appraised. For virtually every government program, you can find a country that does without it, or has much less of it. (I can't sell items on ebay unless the government has a presence in Iraq? Come on!)
In your case, those things are all great, but a) most of them aren't even paid for through IRS-collected moneys and b) make up a sliver of all tax revenues.
Hey, I would *love* to only pay taxes that cover defense, violent/property crimes enforcement, and courts. Where do I sign up.
(One exception is your bit about the gas station attendant being able to read. Aside from being a double-counting, one trick is to only use competent oil changers