CT has consumer protection laws that require retailers accept returns made with a valid receipt, even if they have been notified by the retailer that they have passed the return limit.

Seems that that many manufacturers and game studios fail to grasp this concept. Many buyers of new titles only pay top dollar for the game because of the resale value. I'm sure that no secondary market will hurt the sales of new games, the game studios will of course claim the decline in numbers is due to piracy.

In the case of the this story, the sales tax would apply to people that live in CT and buy something online from a vendor that does not have a physical presence in CT and currently pay no income tax. This is troublesome on many levels, the first being that why does the state of CT have the authority to force an entity in a different state to collect sales tax payable to CT (not to mention that in order to collect CT sales tax the vendor would have to have a CT sales tax permit that currently costs $100). Is every vendor in the entire country supposed to just up and order a CT sales tax permit? That is just absurd.

Now what happens when other states implement the same thing? Is every vendor expected to have a sales tax permit for every state in the country that collects sales tax? There are quite a few states that have different tax rates depending on where you live (or rather based on where the vendor is located). So, once you alter the methodology from vendor location to consumer location the whole concept breaks down pretty quickly.

But, what really bothers me is that the state of CT ALREADY has a system in place to collect sales tax for citizens of CT. The CT sales and use tax includes a use section, which means that if you buy something and the cost did not include CT sales tax then you are responsible for paying the use tax (which is identical to the sales tax percentage) when you file your state tax return. Wouldn't it be easier to enforce this than to try to go after venders located in states that CT could have ZERO jurisdiction over?

No, they are NOT trying to offset the traffic load. They are trying to get content providers to pay for data usage, the traffic load isn't going to change and in fact may actually increase. If I'm using say 2GB/month and suddenly x number of content providers are being charged for 1/2 of my data usage then my usage drops to 1GB/month. I'm not going to be so concerned about going over my data limit and possibly use more data, say up to 1.5GB/month. NOW, my usage is ACTUALLY 2.5GB/month.

This is also one of the quickest ways of learning self hypnosis.

This is EXACTLY what the kiosk mode in Internet Explorer is for.

The IRS has accepted scanned receipts since the late 90's, provided they are identical to the original and legible.

Exactly! I drive through Maine frequently and it isn't uncommon for the flow of traffic to be between 75 and 85 MPH on Rt 95 north of Augusta, with a posted speed limit of 65. On a two lane highway, driving 65 would surely be more dangerous than driving with the flow of traffic. I've also noticed that when the police are out and about they only pull over drivers going significantly faster than other drivers. There is NO WAY a GPS is going to be able to take this into consideration.

Also, even if TomTom is going to be using fixed reference points to decrease the location margin of error, I don't see them being able to deploy these in enough locations where they can guarantee accuracy to under 3 meters. And remember that the 3 meters is the minimal margin of error, the accuracy can be off my much more than that and can result in some odd patterns but I'm sure the software used will be able to exclude any points that seem to deviate from a projected path. I still wouldn't trust one when money or the possibility of me losing my auto insurance is on the line!

ALT-F4 is still easier.

Regarding schoolbooks and DRM. Currently, many schoolbook publishers release new versions almost EVERY year, sometimes with little or no actual changes other than chapters or sections re-arranged only to make the new version not compatible with last years' books (forcing many college students to buy new books instead of used books). An industry like that isn't going to go easy on the DRM.

The recycle rules in Nova Scotia are pretty strict, trash must be separated and almost all organic waste must be composted (the exception is animal fats because they attract animals). I travel up there frequently enough that it was initially a major pain in the ass but I've found myself more aware of the trash I generate. I try to buy things that have less packaging and also try to buy commonly used household items more in bulk.

Garmin has had proximity and location alerts for quite a while.

While I agree with you I don't think this is what the states want. If I live in CT and buy something from an online retailer in CA, the state of CT doesn't want that sales tax going to CA they want their 'use' tax.

First, I'm not familiar with car racing so apologies if my observation is idiotic.

The problem I see with having bar codes or RFID measure the time is how the car crosses the finish line. Because the OP mentioned a beam being interrupted I imagine the finish is determined by the front of the car touching the finish line (not unlike any other type of racing) so if the time is measured by a barcode or image on the roof or door then how do you match that with the front of the vehicle. Also, if the time is measured by when a sensor picks up an RFID tag then again you have issues with mat / receiver sensitivity and tolerances in the transponder triggering the sensor.

Because only one car is on the track at a time you do have some wiggle room, I'm sure there would be many ways to accomplish this but it seems like you're already doing what would seem like the 'best' approach:
System where both IR beams are hooked up the same time, beam 1 starts the time, beam 2 stops the timer. Before each car, race official 'initialized' the timer system by entering information about the car racing, this would solve two issues, the first is that it would reset the timer back to zero, the other being that if the previous car didn't cross the finish beam to stop the timer, the initialize process would automagically flag the previous car as not finishing (not sure how that would effect the time for that driver though). You could also put in other beams throughout the course that would give you times up to that point in the race. So, if you have a start beam, mid course beam and finish line beam, the start beam would start the time, the mid course beam would just grab the time but keep the timer going, the finish line beam would stop the timer.

Is this feasible, too simplistic or am I overlooking something important?

NO, the neighbor went in through the hole in the fence and then took 500 pictures of your property. Hey then gave you the pictures and said he was able to walk through a hole in your fence.