I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary". Subsidiary is by definition a separate company, so yes, it is a case of a separate company. Having tangled with Amazon's lawyers (not a very pleasant experience), I know for sure those guys do not leave anything to chance - so I am sure they crossed the T's and dotted the I's when it came to this sort of thing.

Well, they CLAIMED to be creating up to a thousand new jobs in planned expansions, though you are probably right, the real number would have been smaller (thus "up to" claim). Still, thats 119 REAL jobs slashed, still sucks for 119 families that have to either loose jobs or move out of state.

Really, Texas should get off their ass and just tax every internet purchase, like NY did. It'll save a lot of headaches to everyone involved instead of trying to trying to do weaselly and shady back-billing that even their own Governor disapproves of (as per the article you linked).

It sounds logical but has nothing to do with legal reality.

Reality is simple: Company A Sells a product, but they contract to Company B to do their distribution. Company B is not selling anything, so it is not in charge of collecting any sales tax, all they have to pay is income tax from the contract. It does not matter who owns what - as long as these are separate companies and are run as separate companies. It's a loophole, but a very established and known one. And it is very hard one to close down, as it would pretty much screw every public company - after all they are owned by a lot of people in a lot of states. Plus same people own lots of other company stocks, so by your logic they would all have to be treated as one company.

The only way out of this is by just flat taxing everything shipping to your state, like NY does. But really, that just screws the people of your state. Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying. Go Texas!

Besides that you missed the concept of "example", you focused on "showing", where the key word was "request". You request something of a server and receive a reply action. The confusion here is that X-Server machine is CLIENT to user request to display something but it is a SERVER to the program doing the actual displaying.

Yes, except it is not so simple because you are missing the human factor. The trouble comes from definitions and how they are interpreted. For example you state that a "sounds server" serves sound output (i.e. sound card) but you can just as well call a shoutcast server a "sound server" - which is the opposite. Now you and I understand that they are both "servers", and that when someone listens to a shoutcast server they are a client to the shoutcast server AND a client to a sound card server and that they are two separate sessions, but to a lay-person this is not obvious in the least.

Pretty much.

-Em

It is confusing because while it makes sense from point of view of the X protocol, from the point of view of the user, the "server" appears to be the client and the "client" appears to be the server. If I connect to server and request an image - in the http protocol, I connect to a server(apache), and it shows content on the client(browser). However if I am doing the same thing using X, it appears as if I connect to server(remote system), and request to show an image, and it shows content on client(my display or X-Server). What is actually happening is that the remote server's program is the client that requests to display things on the server - but that is not what the user sees. Thus the confusion of so many people, which is understandable as it is not the most logical thing unless you understand the X protocol.

-Em

That is my thought as well. The best way to silence WikiLeaks is to leak tons of false data that seems right, let it make a lot of noise, then prove that it is all fake. No one will trust them again - so hearing another major leak right after the pentagon one - makes me wonder just how real is this...

-Em

Yeah, exactly, which is why those contracts are generally unenforceable. Look up legal term "Contract of adhesion".

-Em

Thanks, it amused me :-)

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away; Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air...

It is called communication. You see, the point is not to be "original" or even to entertain people, but to get a concept across - and judging by your reaction it clearly did - as you clearly knew exactly what I was talking about - you even mentioned the word "sheeple" to underscore my point (and, if I may say, make yourself a bit of a hypocrite)

So, you see, "sheep" is the perfect choice of a herd animal exactly because everyone else uses this word in that context.

HTH,

-Em

And thats, my friends, is how you boil frogs... (erm, make that sheep)

Please turn in your geek card on the way out because simply not reading the article does not qualify you.

Oracle, after buying Sun (and thus Java) is currently suing Google over its use of Java clone in Android.

-Em

Surprisingly close to accurate.

Actual translation:

"Sometimes impossible is possible. You would think that an abandoned spaceship lying on the streets of Moscow is something out of science fiction, but unfortunately this is reality. A Correspondent of "MK" discovered a soviet orbiter "Buran" lying like trash in the capital's suburbs. Nobody cares about what once was a symbol of the space might of our country"

(And yes, "Buran" is not a name of a ship, its a type of ship.)

Not exactly. It is manufactured by HTC for Google. You think Apple manufactures iPhones??

I think that is by far not the only problem these bozos have.

Not as far as Yankee Group is concerned. From their response:

So its pretty much just Nexus One.