Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom with PureVPN - 79% off. ×

Comment Re:Enormous tax and administrative burdens (Score 1) 342

Some years back, Pennsylvania changed its law as to what was taxable. The previous law was confusing, but had been in place long enough that all of the special cases had been worked out. When they changed the law, they created a whole lot of new special cases (juice drinks are not taxed if they are over 10% juice unless they are carbonated, bottled water is not taxed, not even with carbonation, unless it contains sugar, but not artificial sweetener...I am not sure that those are the provisions, but they are that sort of thing, and whether juice drinks are taxable contains a couple of other categories that make over 10% juice taxable). One store owner could not figure out what was, and was not, taxable (some things, which previously were taxable were no non-taxable, and many more which had previously been non-taxable were now taxable), so he decided to just collect sales tax on everything and pay all of that to the state. He was prosecuted for tax fraud.

Comment Re:Enormous tax and administrative burdens (Score 1) 342

And who is going to maintain this database? Are they going to be liable when they get it wrong, because they ARE going to get it wrong?
There are states where 123 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has a different set of sales tax rules than 124 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 and 125 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has yet a third set of rules.

It is workable for a physical store, they only have to know the rules for the address at which they are located.

Comment Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score 1) 313

Yes, the "unalienable right to bear arms" is pushed by a political agenda...the political agenda who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good document for governing a country. On the other hand, those who want to do away with that right rarely, if ever, actually come out and SAY what they think of the U.S. Constitution. Which is that it is that it is terrible because it is designed to allow people to live their lives free of government interference. You appear to be one of the latter.

You clearly have no understanding about how the U.S. Constitution came to be. The first Ten Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were incorporated into the Constitution in order to overcome some of the opposition to ratifying it. In other words, without the first ten amendments the Constitution would have never been ratified by enough states to go into force. Further, the only reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution as it came out of the Constitutional Convention was because the bulk of the representatives at the Convention were afraid that the rights thus laid out would be seen as the extent of the rights citizens had, rather than just the most important ones in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution. Everyone at the Constitutional Convention agreed with the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, some of them just thought that enumerating them was a bad idea.

Comment Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score 1) 313

Your original post was most certainly a troll, even if it was a call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, because you were calling out as "ideological thought ahead of reality" someone who said that the idea of requiring "smart" tech on a gun was a bad idea (for most uses of a gun, "smart" tech is a bad idea because it introduces at least one more potential point of failure in a system where failure is life threatening).

Comment Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score 2) 313

It is not an "ideological thought" to believe that the 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to own guns. Which therefore means that it is not an "ideological thought" that one has the constitutional right to own guns.
If you had said that the idea that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed was an "ideological thought", you would have been correct.

Comment Re:LOL WTF no. (Score 1) 313

So, in another words, since you believe it to be true, it must be true. I find it highly improbable that such instances are under-reported considering that most news organizations, and most news "reporters", are strongly anti-Second Amendment. My suspicion is that the Gun Fail blog reports every story which is reported to them without making any effort to corroborate those stories (which will result in a significant portion of their stories being, for all intents and purposes, false).
As to gun safety being taught in school, I do indeed remember gun safety being taught. And I recall one aspect of that training being to make sure that those who were too young to know how to handle a gun would be unable to do so (by storing the gun out of their reach, or otherwise so that they could not get to it, and by making sure that you did not leave the gun unattended while it was out of storage). Of course, I attended a school district that closed on the first day of deer season (not because the school wanted to give kids the day off but because a large enough number were going to TAKE the day off that they might as well not try to have classes). Perhaps the problem is that it has been so long since we taught people how to properly handle a gun that we have multiple generations that have never learned proper gun safety (the children of my contemporaries have children).

Comment Re:LOL WTF no. (Score 1) 313

I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"

All of articles I was able to find stated that, in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible (basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise).
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.

Comment Re:Suicide Pact (Score 1) 138

Because he was one of the people at the first earth day making predictions of doom, he IS a scientist (which means he was one of the people the person I replied to said we should listen to), AND his predictions of doom were based on his "area of expertise". He has repeated his predictions of doom several times, even after his original predictions proved to be completely wrong.

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 338

You are correct that Trump cannot be controlled by the Republican Establishment, but why would they need to control him? He wants what they want and always has. Trump is not at war with the RNC, except in as much as he wants into the club which you normally have to spend years cultivating to become a member.

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...