Last year about 130 cops died 'in the line of duty'. Most were car wrecks, some were homicide. In return for fewer than 50 cops killed by violence, they killed between 1200 and 1300+ civilians. Cops need to shut the fuck up about there job being dangerous to them. It isn't. It's dangerous to everyone else.
The states taxation department will have jurisdiction over just about everyone doing business in a state. Instead of making things easier or simpler or even just showing basic logic, the court has decided that mayhem is the preferred state of affairs.
So yes, if you fall under the statute in question, the taxman cometh. No lube for you
Then, as now, it was a decision predicated on a series of questionable assumptions. We can only hope that this latest result won't be as seriously catastrophic for online innovation as Aereo has been.
People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for. The justices found what they wanted in this case.
Unfortunately they seem to have done their navel gazing from the inside - again. They make it very hard to take them seriously when decisions like this fail logic 101 and are pure sophistry from start to finish. Five 'conservative' judges seem to have done a good job in legislating from the bench. Something they claim is verboten and possibly unconstitutional, separation of powers and all that.
This can, and should have been dealt with by Congress, who in their infinite 'wisdom' decided that the status quo was fine with them. The Supremes ditching Quill, and their 'reasons' for doing so is the worst form of twisted logic I have seen from them in quite a while. I think that if they had turned in assignments in law school that followed this type of reasoning they would have flunked out. Seriously, a fucking cookie in your browser gives you a physical presence? I guess we should just be glad that they didn't claim that the internet tubes established a substantial nexus with the taxing State.
My real question is, is this resulting from stupidity, ignorance, mendacity or perfidy; or all of the above?
and you can either adapt your business model to the new paradigm, or you can slowly but surely become an outdated relic
Or just finagle the legislatures and courts to mandate that your outdated business model must be maintained at all costs. Or go the route of games companies. What would loot boxes look like from Spectrum anyways?
Disappointed by this, but not actually surprised. They have consistently shown they have no real knowledge of what they are voting on. And importantly, no desire to learn anything.
In the same way, when the FCC focuses just on broadband infrastructure, it is ignoring the costs on everyone else who use the internet.
You are making the fundamental mistake of considering Pai an honest bureaucrat. He is not, and never has been, an 'honest' employee of the FCC. He is employed by the FCC, yes. But he has always worked for Verizon, not his current employer. Throughout his government career he has made that very clear, in both what he says, and what he does (and doesn't do).
I understand the impulse to 'try to be fair', to 'assume he is honest in his stated positions'. It's the same thing our judiciary does when it assumes cops are honest in their dealings with the public and the judiciary. And that fallacious assumption of honesty is one of the biggest mistakes made in the courts, and in how you report on Pai (and others).
There are people who hold contemptible beliefs honestly. They are not good people. Forget that whole they are good people who are just mistaken about this topic(s). No. NO. They are bad people, full stop. Pai is one of those, a bad person, through and through. He's worse than many of these idiots though. His stated positions are not his. They belong to the people who will very well reward him when he leaves the government and returns to their direct employ.
It is well and good, and maybe even proper, to assume that people will be honest in their dealings when they are in the government. However, when they have demonstrated from day one who they are, and who they really represent, it is mendacious in the extreme to treat them as an honest broker. Pai is not. Tom Wheeler came from a similar background, and while not perfect, he was basically an honest broker.
To continue to treat Pai, Sessions, Christopher Wray and all the rest as 'honest brokers' is beyond wrong. It is a great disservice to everyone, including yourself, to treat them as such. They have an agenda, are damned sure they will win, and not calling them what they are, back stabbing bastards, is not the way to deal with them. They took an oath, they are forsworn, and are essentially worthless as human beings.
Ubisoft and HitRECord seem to be aiming at the modding community and trying too get them involved before they release the game.
For many games the modding community, and the creative work they do, can be as important as the games developers themselves. From Dooms groundbreaking use of WAD files, to Skyrim and its Creation Kit, modders have long been very important parts of gaming. Many modders have jumped ranks from their amateur modding to the ranks of paid artists and developers. Some have become much more - think Counterstrike. It makes some sense to engage the community early, as many of the modders will create content regardless, they will just release it after the game comes out.
Not sure about the ethics of it, will have to wait and see how Ubisoft and HitRECord deal with it, and how they try and screw people over.
On the post: Another Police Accountability Miracle: Five Officers, Zero Body Cam Footage, One Dead Body
Re:
On the post: China Censors John Oliver Because President Xi Looks A Bit Like Winnie The Pooh
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Re: Re: Re: Enforcement
The states taxation department will have jurisdiction over just about everyone doing business in a state. Instead of making things easier or simpler or even just showing basic logic, the court has decided that mayhem is the preferred state of affairs.
So yes, if you fall under the statute in question, the taxman cometh. No lube for you
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Re: Enforcement
The court said that "A website may leave cookies saved to the customers’ hard drives, or customers may download the company’s app onto their phones."
So basically, every website has a 'physical presence' in every state.
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Then, as now, it was a decision predicated on a series of questionable assumptions. We can only hope that this latest result won't be as seriously catastrophic for online innovation as Aereo has been.
People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for. The justices found what they wanted in this case.
Unfortunately they seem to have done their navel gazing from the inside - again. They make it very hard to take them seriously when decisions like this fail logic 101 and are pure sophistry from start to finish. Five 'conservative' judges seem to have done a good job in legislating from the bench. Something they claim is verboten and possibly unconstitutional, separation of powers and all that.
This can, and should have been dealt with by Congress, who in their infinite 'wisdom' decided that the status quo was fine with them. The Supremes ditching Quill, and their 'reasons' for doing so is the worst form of twisted logic I have seen from them in quite a while. I think that if they had turned in assignments in law school that followed this type of reasoning they would have flunked out. Seriously, a fucking cookie in your browser gives you a physical presence? I guess we should just be glad that they didn't claim that the internet tubes established a substantial nexus with the taxing State.
My real question is, is this resulting from stupidity, ignorance, mendacity or perfidy; or all of the above?
On the post: Lawsuit Argues Honking Your Car Horn Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Sigh
Then allow me to amend my statement.
It has to do with a cop and a driver being dicks, nothing more, nothing less.
On the post: Lawsuit Argues Honking Your Car Horn Is Protected By The First Amendment
Sigh
On the post: Broadcasters Hope To Counter Ad Skipping By Replacing Ads With Short 'Inspirational Videos'
and you can either adapt your business model to the new paradigm, or you can slowly but surely become an outdated relic
Or just finagle the legislatures and courts to mandate that your outdated business model must be maintained at all costs. Or go the route of games companies. What would loot boxes look like from Spectrum anyways?
On the post: Alleged Vault 7 Leaker Charged With Stealing Gov't Secrets, Child Porn Possession, And Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: Alleged Vault 7 Leaker Charged With Stealing Gov't Secrets, Child Porn Possession, And Copyright Infringement?
10 to 1 odds he gets a harsher sentence for The 40 Year Old Virgin than for the Vault7 files.
On the post: Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy
Re: Re: you might add a few other stories..
On the post: EU Parliamentary Committee Votes To Put American Internet Giants In Charge Of What Speech Is Allowed Online
On the post: Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy
Mistakes By Masnick and Many Others
In the same way, when the FCC focuses just on broadband infrastructure, it is ignoring the costs on everyone else who use the internet.
You are making the fundamental mistake of considering Pai an honest bureaucrat. He is not, and never has been, an 'honest' employee of the FCC. He is employed by the FCC, yes. But he has always worked for Verizon, not his current employer. Throughout his government career he has made that very clear, in both what he says, and what he does (and doesn't do).
I understand the impulse to 'try to be fair', to 'assume he is honest in his stated positions'. It's the same thing our judiciary does when it assumes cops are honest in their dealings with the public and the judiciary. And that fallacious assumption of honesty is one of the biggest mistakes made in the courts, and in how you report on Pai (and others).
There are people who hold contemptible beliefs honestly. They are not good people. Forget that whole they are good people who are just mistaken about this topic(s). No. NO. They are bad people, full stop. Pai is one of those, a bad person, through and through. He's worse than many of these idiots though. His stated positions are not his. They belong to the people who will very well reward him when he leaves the government and returns to their direct employ.
It is well and good, and maybe even proper, to assume that people will be honest in their dealings when they are in the government. However, when they have demonstrated from day one who they are, and who they really represent, it is mendacious in the extreme to treat them as an honest broker. Pai is not. Tom Wheeler came from a similar background, and while not perfect, he was basically an honest broker.
To continue to treat Pai, Sessions, Christopher Wray and all the rest as 'honest brokers' is beyond wrong. It is a great disservice to everyone, including yourself, to treat them as such. They have an agenda, are damned sure they will win, and not calling them what they are, back stabbing bastards, is not the way to deal with them. They took an oath, they are forsworn, and are essentially worthless as human beings.
On the post: Judge Cock(y)blocks Author Faleena Hopkins' Demand Other Authors Stop Using The Word 'Cocky' In Their Titles
On the post: Ajit Pai Now Trying To Pretend That Everybody Supported Net Neutrality Repeal
Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Now Trying To Pretend That Everybody Supported Net Neutrality Repeal
On the post: Fired FBI Official Now Discovering The 'Civilian' Delight Of Being Jerked Around By Govt' Agencies
Nerd Quote of the Day
Welcome to your former colleagues acting exactly as you used to.
On the post: In Defense Of Ubisoft: Crowdsourcing Game Content Creation Is Actually Fun And Non-Exploitive
Re: Re: Not sure about the ethics of it
On the post: In Defense Of Ubisoft: Crowdsourcing Game Content Creation Is Actually Fun And Non-Exploitive
Re: Re: Re: How many people would have to agree with your political opin
On the post: In Defense Of Ubisoft: Crowdsourcing Game Content Creation Is Actually Fun And Non-Exploitive
Modders
Ubisoft and HitRECord seem to be aiming at the modding community and trying too get them involved before they release the game.
For many games the modding community, and the creative work they do, can be as important as the games developers themselves. From Dooms groundbreaking use of WAD files, to Skyrim and its Creation Kit, modders have long been very important parts of gaming. Many modders have jumped ranks from their amateur modding to the ranks of paid artists and developers. Some have become much more - think Counterstrike. It makes some sense to engage the community early, as many of the modders will create content regardless, they will just release it after the game comes out.
Not sure about the ethics of it, will have to wait and see how Ubisoft and HitRECord deal with it, and how they try and screw people over.
Next >>