Comment Re:Can Luxemborg enforce the IP rights? (Score 1) 158
Then everyone says: "Hey look, the USA is ignoring international patent treaties. I guess we're not bound by them any more either." China sends the USA a gift basket.
Then everyone says: "Hey look, the USA is ignoring international patent treaties. I guess we're not bound by them any more either." China sends the USA a gift basket.
Up until about a decade or so ago in Australia, some clever private individuals established companies and worked their 9 - 5 job through the company, enjoying much lower tax rates and other such benefits of corporate law (shifting losses to other years, etc).
The Australian Tax Office stepped-in and declared if you look like a private individual, walk like a private individual and quack like a private individual
This isn't the way I remember it - unless we're remembering different things. From what I recall, companies were forcing their employees to get a business number, and hiring them as contractors so as to avoid paying for entitlements like superannuation, holidays, etc. The Fair Work Ombudsman slapped them down.
In any case, you'll pay more tax as a company than you will as an individual - you will pay corporate tax on your company's profits, and then personal income tax in all money that you receive from your company. If you spend corporate money as if it was your own to dodge tax, then ASIC will want to have a long, hard talk with you, regardless of what the ATO does.
Then you'll drive every retail industry into the ground.
Say I'm an electronics store. I operate on a profit margin of about 2%, because there's really not that much margin in electronics (or most retail, except the high end). I buy $100,000 worth of stock. I sell that entire volume for $102,000, making myself $2000 profit. I then receive a tax bill based off my revenue of $100,000, instead of my actual income of $2,000.
And I'm sure a licensing requirement would have totally stopped that. I mean, he might have been willing to flaunt federal laws against sexual exploitation of a minor, but he would totally have respected state licensing requirements. Right?
That's pheasant. Although, traditionally, it was fine to harass peasants, but peasants weren't allowed to hunt pheasants.
Bloody English.
It's not vague, it's inclusive.
Same thing. It's inclusive, by being vague.
They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did.
Yes, I'm sure that when they sat down to formulate legislative regulations on corporate finance records, they thoroughly intended that it be used for punishing fishermen who caught undersized fish.
If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location. Hell, take it up a notch, and rely on the second law of thermodynamics.
Stupidly vague laws resulting in legislative over-reach is one of many reasons the law is an ass.
I know, right. I've been making payments online by stuffing bank notes into my drive case for years. Funny, I never seem to get the goods I order.
You mean, programs about educating people on how to engage in useful and productive activities?
How terrible.
But not everyone is convinced the rules go far enough. "The rule is far too weak to address the grave misconduct of predatory for-profit colleges," writes David Halperin.
Says the man who works at a public college teaching English, women’s studies, comparative literature, and classical studies - fields noted for the career prospects of their graduates.
MP3 players existed before the iPod
Smartphones existed before the iPhone
Tablets existed before the iPad
Smartwatches exist, and the iWatch doesn't
Apple doesn't create new categories; they polish and popularise them - sort of the way Blizzard has done with the RTS, action-RPG, and MMO genres in gaming.
Or, you believe the government should be limited in the things they are allowed to do, removing the incentive for bribing them in the first place.
"Tax evasion" has one legal meaning and another colloquial one. Colloquially speaking, "tax evasion" includes tax avoidance of this character.
In other words, tax evasion is what other people do when I don't like it.
Consider, I'm going to roll a 6 sided dice. What number am I going to roll?
The whole of climate science and meteorology is predicated on the fact that those systems are not random. Yeah, the more iterations of a random event, the closer you get to the statistical average. But that doesn't mean that the more variables you add to a system, the more it converges on a predictable single value.
I'm not sure I'm going to agree with this statement however. Is an apple a simpler fruit than an orange?
Is an orange the aggregate of millions of apples over a long period of time?
However, while I'm sure that both 'sides' in this debate are equally guilty of seeing what they want to see, that which confirms their observer bias, I'm not sure that ridiculing weather forecasts is a valid argument against the accuracy and predictive power (or lack thereof) of climate models.
Really? Weather is a simpler, shorter-term analysis than climate, pretty much by definition. If we can't perform the simpler task particularly well, it argues against us being able to do the more complex.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry." -- a Larson cartoon