I don't see the problem here.

That's great (though not what I'd call "conservative"), but it doesn't address sales tax, which is a state and local level issue, and was only being considered federally (with this bill) because so many states were pissed about it. They need to just dump sales tax altogether (i.e., ban it at the federal level), and if a consumption tax really is necessary, then levy it at the federal level only as a VAT just like every other first-world country does. A single VAT (payable to a single governmental entitiy) would be fairly simple for internet merchants to deal with, and would eliminate all the avoidance of use taxes. But if they're going to keep their crazy and arcane scheme of sales taxes with 10,000 jurisdictions, forget it. And the idea of requiring merchants to use a third-party processor to handle sales taxes is wrong too, since 1) that processor won't know what is and isn't taxable except for some general things (i.e. shipping), and 2) requiring people to use particular for-profit businesses is fascism.

So you prefer fucking over poorer people with regressive sales taxes, and letting the rich off easy, and somehow the poorer classes should be the ones doing all the sacrificing? Got it.

People like you are why this country is in a mess. You spout shit like "taking the good with the bad" and because of this you advocate horrible legislation that would put an undue burden on small-business owners, giving a huge advantage to big businesses like Amazon and local big-box stores. There's 10,000 tax jurisdictions in the US, each one with completely different rules about what can be taxed, and at what rate. In some states, shipping is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states, clothing is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states certain items have a lower tax. How the hell is some small-business owner supposed to figure all that out for 10,000 different jurisdictions?

And why do stupid liberals like you love sales taxes so much anyway? They're the most regressive form of taxation and hurt poor people the most. Obviously you're OK with making the poor working-class stiffs take the good with the bad, while letting your ultra-rich cronies at Comcast and Citibank off.

If getting stuff done means a shitty internet sales tax law, then no, I don't want to get things done.

But there is an argument that physical retailers are unfairly hurt when people can use them as showroom and then go online and purchase the items without sales tax.

Too bad. Have you forgotten about shipping charges? If the retailer's price with sales tax is higher than the online price with shipping costs (plus the inconvenience factor of having to fumble around on web sites and then wait a week for it to arrive, unless you pay even more for faster shipping), then the retailer is charging too much and deserves to go under.

It's not that at all, it's that this is one of the (probably few) issues where Republicans simply have the right idea, and Democrats are firmly in the wrong.

Another issue where Democrats are totally wrong is with patent reform. The Repubs want to reform the patent system somewhat to stop patent trolls, while the Dems apparently love patent trolls and have blocked this reform.

Won't work, for the reasons the AC responder said. This company won't know whether your product/service is taxable or not, or if it needs to be taxed at a different rate, etc. They're not going to employ human representatives to look at every single thing you sell and make a determination.

Here's my suggestion: all the states have to agree on a single tax rate, nationwide, and a single set of rules (e.g., groceries are not taxable, clothing isn't taxable or is reduced, etc.). Then there's a single federal-level agency where the tax money is remitted and distributed to the right state. No localities can levy additional sales taxes. Until all this happens, no nationwide sales tax is allowed.

No, it sounds like gridlock is actually better. Without gridlock, we'd get a Congress that would pass an internet sales tax bill. With gridlock, the bill dies, which is exactly what I want to see happen.

So strangely, I actually have to cheer for the Republican takeover on this issue.

They'll succeed: they're going to successfully repeal the medical devices tax, and then cheer about what a huge accomplishment this is (and to be fair, it's a good idea, the tax is stupid). Then they'll move on to something different and forget about Obamacare.

What security features, and are they present in PostgreSQL?

I'm not sure why everyone automatically goes to MySQL as the only choice for open-source RDBMSes, when Postgres seems to be superior in every way.

Technically, you're supposed to pay the tax based on your residence, not the location of the merchant. Most merchants don't bother (and aren't required to) because it'd be a logistical nightmare, but try buying a car sometime: the dealer charges tax based on where you live, even if it's out-of-state.

In your case, you're probably supposed to pay that 1.86% difference in the "use tax" portion of your state taxes.

Hmm, this sounds a lot like the complaint that women make less in the field. One thing about professional fields like this, though, is that negotiations are a big part of the final pay; some people are able to negotiate better salaries than others, and it's been said many times that women aren't as aggressive in salary negotiations as men. The same could be true of blacks unfortunately. Or they could be the type of people who don't change jobs much (once they get in a place, they don't want to leave because they value security higher): people like that always get terrible salaries, because the only way to get a serious raise in IT or engineering is to quit and get a new job. I wonder if any of these things are factors here. Of course, racism could certainly play a part here: if Jamal has a hard time getting an interview because of his name, once he finally finds a place that'll hire him, he may very well be inclined to take whatever their first salary offer is, and then never leave.

Society has these problems, so why wouldn't tech fields?

Because tech fields are composed of different types of people who go into construction and commercial fishing. Hint: education is a big factor.

I completely agree that you can't expect tech to hire more blacks than are available in the labor supply.

Ok, then what exactly are you complaining about? If they can't hire more blacks than are available, then why are you complaining that they aren't hiring more blacks than are available in the labor supply?

But we're still human, still tribal, and still subject to the same social forces as the rest of society.

What social forces? If there's no qualified blacks to hire, then how do "social forces" have anything to do with it?

This thing with the black names sounds like BS to me. Was this study confined to tech jobs, or was it all jobs? If it wasn't confined to tech jobs, then it's irrelevant.

I have no doubt that in many industries, having a "black" name will make it harder to get an interview. But that doesn't mean it's true in all industries, particularly the tech industry. There certainly isn't much trouble with people with "Indian" names (like Swapnil, Ravishankar, etc.) getting interviews, and lots of companies are desperate to hire anyone who's qualified.