Because the store really is charging you $20. But the government is also charging you tax on the price of the sale. In many places in the US, if the store attempted to list prices with the tax included, they'd get in legal trouble for not collecting taxes on the listed price.
So for that $20 item, if the combined (city, state, national) tax is 10%, you'd owe $2 tax on the purchase -- and it's owed by you, not the store, even though they collect it on the government's behalf -- for a total of $22. But if they advertised a $22 price with the intent of making it 'tax included', the government might well charge tax based on the listed price, which means the actual tax owed is $2.20, making the amount you owe $24.20!
Even in places where that isn't the case, companies have had psychological studies done, that have found that if someone is given a choice between "$20 plus 10% tax" and "$22" they will unconsciously view the store with the $20 price as cheaper/lower/better and shop there instead. So the store that is upfront and honest about the final price will get less business. The only way around this would be a national law requiring that all advertised prices be listed with the tax included, which could easily cause trouble with those places where the advertised price is the price the tax is calculated from.
It can't happen here. It couldn't happen in 1930s Germany either, until it did. Suggest it might be happening here and you get shouted down -- just like people raising warning flags in the 1930s were.
Just substitute immigrants for Jews/Romany/homosexuals and the picture becomes clear.
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
If it was a rental, the price shouldn't be the same as a purchase. If it was a purchase, then Apple owes a refund since they charged for a purchase, not a rental.
And what if the customer(s) just licensed their money to Apple?
San Diego Comic Con started using that name in 1973. GenCon dates back to 1968. Can you get a trademark on shortening Conven tion to Con invalidated because someone was already using it in business -- the same market even -- when someone applied for it?
True, but one thing to consider is design life and generations.
A computer generation is about 18 months. Any device that can surf the web is arguably a computer for these purposes. A human generation is about 25 years -- comparing the two, a 2013 phone in 2018 is equivalent to a 65-70 year old human.
If your phone has hit retirement age, why would anyone be surprised that it's time to retire it?
Defendants in civil asset forfeiture cases are inanimate object or bodies of land -- they cannot hire lawyers due to being inanimate.
That's the nasty thing about civil forfeiture -- human defendants have rights and interests that are protected by law. Cars and land and money do not. So all sorts of things that would be illegal if applied to suing a person usually aren'y illegal when suing a piece of property.
What you're describing is known as criminal asset forfeiture, but the issue here is civil asset forfeiture.
Walmart (and others) do this. If you want to print a photo or two (that you took yourself) and it looks 'too professional', they'll refuse to print it because it's copyrighted.
No amount of arguing or showing that your ID matches the copyright watermark (if you added one) will sway them.
ONLY corporations can produce copyrighted works. Everyone else must be a thief.
The entire basis of the organization is that that specific truck had been used to smuggle cocaine before, been seized, and the smugglers prosecuted.
Since both civil and criminal asset forfeiture are things that exist, how did that truck get back into the wild, as it were? Obviously it was forfeited and sold, given how cash hungry cops are, no amount of property is too small to forfeit.
So the new owners of the truck are not under any suspicion of any kind -- all of the suspicion here falls upon the truck, as if it had loaded the cocaine all by itself, independent of its owners!
So the government acts as if the truck were the smuggler, and attached a GPS tracker. They follow the truck, and when it makes its delivery, they sweep in and bust the people operating it. They search the truck and find only the cargo on the manifest, none of it illegal in any way.
AND THEY STILL FILED CHARGES AGAINST THE OPERATORS!
They are apparently prosecuting people for owning a truck that the government sold to them, with no actual evidence against them aside from an illegal search that failed to find anything illegal on the truck!
If the Constitution does not apply at the border -- not just the 4th amendment but the whole thing -- it would naturally follow that federal laws cannot apply there either, nor can federal agencies take official action there, since they both rely on the Constitution for their authority to exist.
First, 11,000 mAh is not 'colossal' in any way. The FAA limit is 26,800 mAh without needing permission from the airline, and up to about 50,000 mAh with airline permission (above that is forbidden by FAA regulations). I own a 120,000 mAh battery I use in place of a generator for emergencies and camping -- while it's not legal on an airliner, it's a lot closer to what would be considered 'colossal' these days.
Second, if you don't consider the 3rd USB port a must-have, you can get an 11,000 mAh battery with two USB ports on Amazon right now for a buck or two more than half the price of the Daily Deal here.
If the rules say you always lose, why not try different rules?
This is precisely why I believe suing cops for violating your rights is a bad idea. Supposedly, creating a less privileged class of citizen is illegal, but the current Qualified Immunity doctrine sure does exactly that. Police have more privileges than non-police, creating a very LARGE less privileged class. Courts supposedly lack the authority to create new laws, but they've done exactly that with Qualified Immunity -- and if someone tried to create an actual law that does what that doctrine does, the law would be struck down by the same courts that adhere to QI like it was the Word of God!
Every single thing that previous generations considered so beyond the pale that no one could ever justify doing it is now fair game for a rights violation by police because no court has ever needed to rule on such a violation before because everyone knew it was a violation. And with no previous case law, courts defer to the doctrine of Qualified Immunity and dismiss the case.
This is why, for years now, I've been suggesting that instead of going through the civil courts, people should take the criminal court route. Every rights violation that you could win a Title 42, Section 1983 lawsuit against a police officer for (assuming you get past the doctrine of qualified immunity) is also a criminal act under Title 18, Section 242! And almost invariably a felony to boot, given the circumstances of a typical rights violation by police!
In 49 out of 50 states, it is completely legal for non-police to arrest a criminal for committing a felony in their presence, even if that criminal is a cop. In almost all of those, it's just as illegal to flee from or resist a citizen's arrest as it is to do so for one by police. Escaping from custody is a crime in all 50 states.
Sure, you might be putting yourself in danger doing it, but you're already in danger just by being in close proximity to police. If they decide to attack you unlawfully, odds are you are the one who will go to prison for it. If they decide to kill you, even if they are prosecuted and convicted you will remain dead -- and the odds heavily favor them getting away with murdering you too.
There's an old story about two government workers in China who were late to work. The penalty for anyone holding a government job being late was death. So was the penalty for armed rebellion. When people have nothing to lose, and success means escaping to safety, why not go for it?
"(a) receiving a pre-generated file linking to at least some content from current and upcoming digital editions, (b) requesting the linked-content for display, and (c) determining how much content from the upcoming edition to download based on publication date and device capacity."
My computer violated that patent when I clicked on the link to this very article!
Re: Re: Re: Behavior Upon Witnessing an Officer in Trouble
Given that there are MANY people who would be in prison, convicted of felonies, without a recording contradicting a lying cop, they're not mandatory but only a fool won't have one.
Taking that 'what if the private citizen has a gun' what if:
Suppose a cop sees someone jaywalking (practically a sacred right in NYC) and decided to go all tacticool excessive force takedown on the poor jaywalker. Jaywalker isn't resisting at all (and is down on the ground injured) but the cop pulls a muscle and collapses too, screaming for help.
Bystander draws gun (legality of carry optional) and demonstrates police grade marksmanship skills. Fires 10-20 times, missed jaywalker entirely, kills officer, two cats and a TV. Responding backup sees the assisting citizen and guns him down, no questions asked.
And the outcome: The law is quite clear. The jaywalker murdered the cop (felony murder rule) by resisting arrest (not falling down before the officer drop-kicked him), thereby making it 'necessary' for someone to use force on him in defense of the dead officer, so he goes to prison for 20-life. The shooter is dead, but his estate gets sued by the cop's family and loses everything.
But hey, at least his family gets $500 out of it, right?
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: Re:
So for that $20 item, if the combined (city, state, national) tax is 10%, you'd owe $2 tax on the purchase -- and it's owed by you, not the store, even though they collect it on the government's behalf -- for a total of $22. But if they advertised a $22 price with the intent of making it 'tax included', the government might well charge tax based on the listed price, which means the actual tax owed is $2.20, making the amount you owe $24.20!
Even in places where that isn't the case, companies have had psychological studies done, that have found that if someone is given a choice between "$20 plus 10% tax" and "$22" they will unconsciously view the store with the $20 price as cheaper/lower/better and shop there instead. So the store that is upfront and honest about the final price will get less business. The only way around this would be a national law requiring that all advertised prices be listed with the tax included, which could easily cause trouble with those places where the advertised price is the price the tax is calculated from.
On the post: Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List
Re:
Just substitute immigrants for Jews/Romany/homosexuals and the picture becomes clear.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
And what if the customer(s) just licensed their money to Apple?
On the post: More Comic Conventions Change Their Names After Crazy SDCC Attorney's Fees And Injunction Ruling
Re: Con Game
On the post: Express Homebuyers Wins Again As Court Decides Its Allowed To Have Opinions
Re: judges
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
Re:
A computer generation is about 18 months. Any device that can surf the web is arguably a computer for these purposes. A human generation is about 25 years -- comparing the two, a 2013 phone in 2018 is equivalent to a 65-70 year old human.
If your phone has hit retirement age, why would anyone be surprised that it's time to retire it?
On the post: Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
Re: Re: Telling numbers
That's the nasty thing about civil forfeiture -- human defendants have rights and interests that are protected by law. Cars and land and money do not. So all sorts of things that would be illegal if applied to suing a person usually aren'y illegal when suing a piece of property.
What you're describing is known as criminal asset forfeiture, but the issue here is civil asset forfeiture.
On the post: Google Moderation Team Decides My Piece About The Impossible Nature Of Content Moderation Is 'Dangerous Or Derogatory'
Re: Re: Re:
No amount of arguing or showing that your ID matches the copyright watermark (if you added one) will sway them.
ONLY corporations can produce copyrighted works. Everyone else must be a thief.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Feds' Attempt To Expand The 'Border Search' Exception To Cover Inland GPS Monitoring
Re: Wait a second...
On the post: Court Shuts Down Feds' Attempt To Expand The 'Border Search' Exception To Cover Inland GPS Monitoring
Wait a second...
Since both civil and criminal asset forfeiture are things that exist, how did that truck get back into the wild, as it were? Obviously it was forfeited and sold, given how cash hungry cops are, no amount of property is too small to forfeit.
So the new owners of the truck are not under any suspicion of any kind -- all of the suspicion here falls upon the truck, as if it had loaded the cocaine all by itself, independent of its owners!
So the government acts as if the truck were the smuggler, and attached a GPS tracker. They follow the truck, and when it makes its delivery, they sweep in and bust the people operating it. They search the truck and find only the cargo on the manifest, none of it illegal in any way.
AND THEY STILL FILED CHARGES AGAINST THE OPERATORS!
They are apparently prosecuting people for owning a truck that the government sold to them, with no actual evidence against them aside from an illegal search that failed to find anything illegal on the truck!
On the post: Court Shuts Down Feds' Attempt To Expand The 'Border Search' Exception To Cover Inland GPS Monitoring
Re:
On the post: Daily Deal: PowerUP 11,000mAh Triple USB Battery
Re:
On the post: Daily Deal: PowerUP 11,000mAh Triple USB Battery
Two Things
Second, if you don't consider the 3rd USB port a must-have, you can get an 11,000 mAh battery with two USB ports on Amazon right now for a buck or two more than half the price of the Daily Deal here.
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
If the rules say you always lose, why not try different rules?
Every single thing that previous generations considered so beyond the pale that no one could ever justify doing it is now fair game for a rights violation by police because no court has ever needed to rule on such a violation before because everyone knew it was a violation. And with no previous case law, courts defer to the doctrine of Qualified Immunity and dismiss the case.
This is why, for years now, I've been suggesting that instead of going through the civil courts, people should take the criminal court route. Every rights violation that you could win a Title 42, Section 1983 lawsuit against a police officer for (assuming you get past the doctrine of qualified immunity) is also a criminal act under Title 18, Section 242! And almost invariably a felony to boot, given the circumstances of a typical rights violation by police!
In 49 out of 50 states, it is completely legal for non-police to arrest a criminal for committing a felony in their presence, even if that criminal is a cop. In almost all of those, it's just as illegal to flee from or resist a citizen's arrest as it is to do so for one by police. Escaping from custody is a crime in all 50 states.
Sure, you might be putting yourself in danger doing it, but you're already in danger just by being in close proximity to police. If they decide to attack you unlawfully, odds are you are the one who will go to prison for it. If they decide to kill you, even if they are prosecuted and convicted you will remain dead -- and the odds heavily favor them getting away with murdering you too.
There's an old story about two government workers in China who were late to work. The penalty for anyone holding a government job being late was death. So was the penalty for armed rebellion. When people have nothing to lose, and success means escaping to safety, why not go for it?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Stops Monkeying Around And Denies En Banc Review Of The Monkey Selfie Case
Re:
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: A Newspaper On A Screen
Holy Crap
My computer violated that patent when I clicked on the link to this very article!
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: A Newspaper On A Screen
Re:
On the post: Police Union Offers Citizens $500 To Get Hurt, Killed, Or Sued As Amateur Cops
Re: Re: To continue the what ifs...
On the post: Police Union Offers Citizens $500 To Get Hurt, Killed, Or Sued As Amateur Cops
Re: Re: Re: Behavior Upon Witnessing an Officer in Trouble
On the post: Police Union Offers Citizens $500 To Get Hurt, Killed, Or Sued As Amateur Cops
To continue the what ifs...
Suppose a cop sees someone jaywalking (practically a sacred right in NYC) and decided to go all tacticool excessive force takedown on the poor jaywalker. Jaywalker isn't resisting at all (and is down on the ground injured) but the cop pulls a muscle and collapses too, screaming for help.
Bystander draws gun (legality of carry optional) and demonstrates police grade marksmanship skills. Fires 10-20 times, missed jaywalker entirely, kills officer, two cats and a TV. Responding backup sees the assisting citizen and guns him down, no questions asked.
And the outcome: The law is quite clear. The jaywalker murdered the cop (felony murder rule) by resisting arrest (not falling down before the officer drop-kicked him), thereby making it 'necessary' for someone to use force on him in defense of the dead officer, so he goes to prison for 20-life. The shooter is dead, but his estate gets sued by the cop's family and loses everything.
But hey, at least his family gets $500 out of it, right?
Next >>