They were told they must stop if they are not exempt. The companies position is that they are exempt. They have chosen not to gamble that the commonwealth will rule in their favor during the appeal; however, that is their choice and they could have continued to operate.
Yes, because you can always relinquish your citizenship and leave the country if you don't want to pay taxes. It should be noted that all "voluntary" market transactions occur pursuant to the implicit threat of force. When I buy something, I reserve the right to invoke the state's use of force if the product is say defective, while the seller reserves the right to invoke the state's use of force if my payment is say counterfeit currency. Per your definition, there are no voluntary transactions in any country with even the most basic government. Which is certainly a self-consistent definition, though it's arguably not that useful unless you believe that full-fledged anarchy is feasible.
Well in fairness, that's the exact way the argument is usually seen deployed by those opposing state regulation of anything who eventually end up hyperventilating about jackbooted thugs forcing you to register your car at the DMV.
You don't pay for class 2 certs from startssl. You pay for class 2 validation. After validation you can generate an unlimited number of class 2 certs at no cost including wildcard certs. Validation is cheaper than a single premium cert from getssl.
Startssl does charge per cert for EV certs. The first cert is $199.90 and subsequent are $49.90. A bargain compared to most ssl cert providers.
The poster wasn't changing the subject from the rape of females to the rape of males. The title of the article is "Facebook agrees to ban sexual assault 'humor'" and not "Facebook agrees to ban sexual assault against women 'humor'" yet the article only seemed to address sexual assault against women humor. Asking if the policy also extends to humor regarding sexual assaults against males is a fair question under the circumstances and in no way diminishes the gravity of both.
According to surveys 7 - 12% percent of males report having been the victim of a sexual assault with the vast majority of victims having been assaulted while minors. The rate of sexual assaults against males is increasing. It is a serious and increasing problem.
It's a tough call to make, but you do have a point.
I suppose what kind of threw me off was that the image linked as an example by the poster could be understood as both a male and female version of sexual assault "jokes". Still, the implication is clearly male, just as the implication of the article was clearly female. (Actually, a little more than just implication, but the title sets to tone to be a little more general.)
One point I do still maintain is that there simply is a clear imbalance between sexual assault on females and males. Yes, that does not change the gravity of either, but it does suggest how the conversation about it ought to run. If it were the other way around, seeing society predominantly talk about female sexual assault would be troublesome. But it is not and thus pulling the conversation towards male sexual assault kind of rings my alarm bells. Just as the implication is universally female, bringing up male sexual assault implies trying to diminish it being a predominantly female issue.
It is accurate that sexual assault against females gets the center stage and it is just as correct that sexual assault against males is a serious issue.
Your point about sexual assaults against males being rising is interesting - do you happen to have a link on that? My immediate theory would be that while there might be a rise, it can only ever be a rise in reported assault. So I would guess that it is probably increased by the fact that we as a society have become more open to accept males as victims of sexual assault in the first place. But I would be interested in seeing actual data on that.
One point I do still maintain is that there simply is a clear imbalance between sexual assault on females and males. Yes, that does not change the gravity of either, but it does suggest how the conversation about it ought to run. If it were the other way around, seeing society predominantly talk about female sexual assault would be troublesome. But it is not and thus pulling the conversation towards male sexual assault kind of rings my alarm bells. Just as the implication is universally female, bringing up male sexual assault implies trying to diminish it being a predominantly female issue.
uhhh...???
Jokes about male rape are accepted by the mainstream more than female rape jokes, in my opinion, specifically prison rape. Under almost any article/image about some criminal (particularly violent criminals) or suspected criminal that has numerous comments, you will find facetious comments about how that criminal will/should be raped in prison. Now, I asked my original question because, if facebook do start to remove jokes about male rape, it will affect a larger number of people and perhaps affect people that do not feel that a joke about male prison rape is actually a rape joke and I find that interesting.
Egregious invasion of privacy? The dean authorized a search of the subject lines of emails sent by a specific set of employees using an email system provided by their employer. A system which based upon law and I'm willing to guess the acceptable use policy faculty agree to, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using. This was done in order to determine if student information, which the university has an obligation to protect, was leaked along with other information regarding the disciplinary action. Doesn't sound like an invasion of privacy at all and certainly not egregious.
He had two obligations, his moral obligations to his students and his obligation as a school system employee, which were in conflict. He choose his moral obligation to his students, but in doing so violated his obligation as a school system employee. The school system did not ask him to perform anything illegal or definitively immoral. It is therefore correct for the school system to punish him for this violation.
If the school system asked him to do something, anything that is in conflict with his moral obligations to students - as you claim - then it DID ask him to perform something immoral.
I should have been clearer. From his point of view he had a moral obligation to his students. I actually don't think he did.
The school system should be following a combination of legal code and the generally accepted morals of the community they represent. Notification was provided to parents. Parents could opt out and there was no general movement by parents to prevent the survey. The school therefore didn't ask him to do anything which is "definitively immoral".
People including myself have to make judgements like this at different times during their career. I have worked for companies which have asked me to perform actions which I personally have found against my moral code but which aren't illegal and may not be considered immoral by society as a whole. Sometimes I have done them and other times I have not. It has depended on how large of a violation of my own moral code I though it was. Anytime I have refused I have fully expected and received negative reactions from my employer. To actively interfere with the goals or requests of your employer and not expect a negative reaction is just idiotic.
According to the article there was a specific script to be followed when distributing the survey. By informing the students of their 5th amendment rights he deviated from this script. Beyond this it was obviously the intent of the school system for students to complete the survey fully and honestly. He knowingly took actions which he knew might lead students to not doing so.
The article didn't say that he did not read the script - just that he also offered information about the 5th amendment. That's not an instance of failing to fulfill his obligations. Also, even if he acted in a way to thwart the "intent" of the school system administration, which has not been demonstrated, it is not at all clear that this constitutes a failure to fulfill his obligations as an employee. It might be that his obligations should be interpreted as including the thwarting of the intent of the administration in some instances. Just as a soldier in the American army is obligated to disobey an illegal order.
They aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This has not been settled by case law and the judge which signed off on the search warrant agreed with the government that the journalist may be a co-conspirator.
Thanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.
This is going to be a bad post because I'm not where I can look up and provide links to the supporting material, but from what I recall the cleansing of eggs also had to with different egg distribution models between the US and UK.
No, the different distribution model (refrigerated in the US, not so in the UK) is because washed eggs have to be kept cold, while unwashed eggs do not.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for the US clean-disinfect-keep cold regime is that it ensures consumers get pretty-looking poop-free eggs -- and, as a not inconsequential byproduct, don't accidentally get bird poop and its assorted nasties into their food.
24 states have already certified 6 sales tax service providers. It is expected that most states will certify these same providers. The providers have already integrated their service/software with a significant number of the major e-commerce platforms. After all the integration drives business to them. Depending on the service provider and the features used there may or may not be a fee for the retailer.
The author and you are confused. There is no internet specific tax being discussed in the US. The "Internet tax" bill just allows states to require companies to collect state sales tax when they sell an item to someone in the state. This is the same tax which is collected by brick and mortar stores within the state. Currently if I buy items online each year when filing my state taxes by law I must declare the value of my online purchases and pay the sales tax on them. As you can guess many people don't declare the purchases as required. The "Internet tax" bill is really a bill to change allowed tax collection methods to ensure that all currently applicable taxes are collected.
So as a hypothetical business owner in Washington who sells things online, I have to keep track of the tax laws of the other 49 states, and remit 50 checks quarterly (or maybe annually)?
> So as a hypothetical business owner in Washington who sells things online, I have to keep track of the tax laws of the other 49 states, and remit 50 checks quarterly (or maybe annually)?
Well, you have to either keep track of those laws for the states you choose to sell into, or use the free software provided by each state that has opted into the arrangement (the MFA provides an opt-in regime for states, with conditions including the provision of free software, with retailers not liable for any failure to collect and/or remit tax that is due to errors in the software.) But, yeah, you have to pay each taxing "state" (which will probably be less than 50 initially, but more than 50 in the limit case, since "states" under the MFA include the the 50 states, DC, plus other US territories and possessions.)
Or, instead of using the State-provided software and doing it yourself, you can pay a "certified software provider" to do it, and be immunized against liability for any errors that are the fault of that provider.
No, you don't. There are certain conditions which the states have to meet before they can start requiring collection. One of which is to certify one or more service providers which can be used to determine the appropriate sales tax to be collected. Currently 24 states have already certified 6 service providers including one free one. It is expected that most states will certify one or more of the existing 6 providers. If you use a certified service provider to determine the tax to be collected and the service provider makes an error you are indemnified from liability. Many e-commerce platforms already have integration with these providers. Besides determining the tax rate the providers can provide reporting regarding taxes collected and automatically file your tax returns to the states. For more info regarding the law go to http://www.marketplacefairness.org/
