Should be simple: at the time of the sale the tax should be calculated based on the billing address as if it was a physical store. Simple as that. I wonder what's hard about it...
Its amazing how simple concepts to an engineer become leviathans when Government is involved.
I suspect the state the company is in would want some of the cash the company is collecting (yes, they already do in the form of franchise or business taxes, but they forget about that too,) since they usually get some sales tax in normal brick-and-mortar sales. Some states are hitting the crack pipe so hard at the moment that they want a piece of every sale, whether or not it starts in or finishes in their state.
All true if, as you say, a little pedantic. Doesn't change the fact that all WiFi receivers in range receive all packets though, does it?
Many access points, and most client software, captures data based on this traffic to show you what is in the air around you.
Many access points label this information as "site survey" so that they can allow the administrator to chose the least populated channel (which of course, very few administrators realize that there are only three channels which do not interfere with each other: 1, 6, 11, and that choosing 2,3,4,5,7,8,9, or 10 makes you a dick,) and thus allow the administrator to chose channel 3 (because nobody else is on it.)
Most clients will display, as a matter of course, the list of SSIDs they see so that the user can connect to the one they think is theirs. Which is often a lot of fun when you set up an identical SSID as the one they usually use, and then they end up connecting to your access point without authorization! Me loves me some hot "linksys" or "default" SSID action!
But our fear and our thirst for absolute security seem to have killed any sense of humor, no?
I made a joke on the phone a couple days ago about the NSA spying on my call. It was a dumb joke, but I do that from time to time. The person I was talking to said I shouldn't joke about that, in case the NSA is really listening to the call. I nearly dropped the phone laughing at that response.
The moral police is strong here too. But they are mostly mocked and laughed at.
I wish it were the same here. I think they are winning.
it shouldn't be that difficult to scrap up a couple million dollars to throw at the problem to get a relatively simple fix implemented.
I'd prefer to scratch the whole program entirely and save the money altogether. Why throw good money out with bad.
Implementing a simple Linux based system would be far easier than trying to wring water out of a stone. CAC works with Linux, albeit not as easily, and it wouldn't take too much money to dump Windows and ActiveCard and throw a little at the contractors to come up with what is needed using Linux.
Unfortunately, even with acquisition rules changing to enforce open-source in the selection process, it is still really difficult for open-source to get any sort of traction in government (mainly because it is seen as a free, and thus unsupported, operating system.)
they definitely have enough clout to get it fixed if they cared to exercise it.
I've sat in meetings with Microsoft in which a Microsoft engineer has told us, straight faced, that we don't buy enough of their product to mean anything to their bottom line (even though we apparently have enough clout to have a couple Microsoft-paid engineers working at our facility and with us on a regular basis.) They wouldn't move when we pointed out their software was broken, and we ended up having to write our own software to cover up their failure to fix their software (which they ended up using and pushing out to all their customers.)
Nope, unless the Army levels a couple buildings in Redmond Washington, or takes their business elsewhere (either of which are highly unlikely,) Microsoft will still view them with the same disdain it views all of its other customers.
You would be lucky if they were even using a recent version of Windows.
You'd be surprised. Recent efforts have been put into place to mandate the latest OS's and for the most part, the longest pole in the tent is usually running Windows 7/Windows 2008R2 (very few are pushing for Windows 8.) The problem has always been the program of records, which tend to take forever since engineering is done by a committee and they don't want to break anything by moving to a new OS without testing to make sure everything works exactly the way it worked on the old OS. And then, there is the ton of paperwork, studies, quick-look reports, mandated engineering documentation nobody will ever look at, and security and accreditation processes that turn a simple operation into a 6 year process.
It is still on par with a snail on a cold winter's day, but usually without the molasses part (unless that is used to keep the engineers happy.)
Very much a sad but true statement. They go so far as outlaw their own people from knowing what everyone else already knows, even though that action pretty much guarantees failure.
However, having experienced this issue myself (the abnormally slow and long period of time for a system to lock after removing a smart card,) it isn't something the Army can easily fix. The problem is Microsoft's and ActiveCard's. Microsoft has the capability of locking the computer on smartcard removal built into Windows, and it has the option to lock the system, or log the user off. The problem isn't when the lock the system option is used, but when the log the user off option is used (which is used for shared systems.)
Instead of Microsoft/ActiveCard doing the right thing, which is to lock the system, and then process the log-off of the user, it just goes through the standard log-off, which may take some time because running applications are terminated and user data is saved. And if any application asks the user a question (like, do you really want to quit without saving your document?,) the system may sit in a much longer than usual stuck state. If the user is impatient and leaves before this process is completed, then someone else can interrupt the process and continue on using the system.
There are really two ways to fix this problem, and both will require active participation from Microsoft/ActiveCard. The first would be to perform the "log on as different user" capability built into the OS when the user removes their CAC. By doing so, the user is still logged in, and their applications and data are still safe, but the system will allow another user to log in and receive a new session (this is limited in Windows, and since the original user is still running applications and using data, may slow down the system if a couple people are logged in.) Or, Microsoft/ActiveCard could change the software so that upon immediate removal of the card, the system is locked, and the user is logged out in the background.
I doubt the Army has enough clout to fix this themselves.
So much fail. In my experience, World of Warcraft has destroyed more relationships than Call of Duty has. If you are more interested in playing a game than dating or spending time with your significant other, then it really doesn't matter whether you are playing CoD or Whirly-word.
Of course, I suspect, WoW has also brought folks together as well. Games can be highly social events... I just can't wait to hear what the media will think of an OASIS like full immersion game system.
the very last thing you should be talking about is confidential and privileged matters
I try to follow that advice when talking on the phone anyway ... especially now that I am pretty certain that my phone calls are being listened to by the NSA anyway. I've been known to say stupid stuff on the phone as a joke, but figuring some of that may already be in some record somewhere, I figure I'll fly low to keep from ending up on a watch-list or a no-fly-list.
Which is why I said you need to appropriately time the yellows. If the light is turning red while a car is still in the intersection, then either the light or the car is doing something wrong.
Understood, however, in California, CVC 21453 states that a driver cannot enter the intersection if they are facing a red light. I have not checked the laws in other states, but I am sure there are a couple atleast that have the same laws. In California, if any part of the vehicle is already in the intersection when the light turns red, then they can legally traverse the intersection. Thus, the car may be doing something wrong, but at least in California it isn't being unlawful. Thus, at least in California, shortening the yellow light prevents the driver from stopping in time, but so long as they enter the intersection before the light turns red, they need time to get through the intersection before the other cars run into them. Most people wait a few seconds for the intersection to clear, but like speeders, there are folks that take off the moment the light turns green. Having all ways red for a few moments would allow the intersection to clear.
You really think that most speed limits are set based on average speeds? Come on. If that were the case, the speed limits would go up every time they measured. Nobody drives on roads BEFORE they have a speed limit, and that speed limit itself is going to influence how fast some drivers go.
Based on my knowledge and experience, yes, that is the case. They do use formulas, and often the initial speed is based on this, but I've seen speed limits change on a number of roads, and talking with friends in the community in other states, they've seen the same. A road right down the street from me switched from 40 to 50, and another from 35 to 30 based on traffic surveys. There are many factors which go into selecting a speed limit for a road, but often it is based on an average.
While that may not be true for all states, my understanding is that part of the traffic survey for determining a speed limit is based on an average speed limit of drivers driving on the road.
The California Department of Transportation has a nice document discussing how this is accomplished in California: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/traffic/Realistic-Speed-Zoning.PDF. Googling speed limit survey produces a number of applicable hits as well, across the gamut of states. If you have a document which points out I am wrong on this, please feel free to post it here so I can stand corrected.
So, in your eyes, the occasional traffic accident that results in a complete shutdown of the road for 45 minutes to an hour is more important than 15 seconds. I am glad you aren't a traffic engineer.
Sure, 15 seconds may be too long, depending on the road conditions (the slower the traffic, the longer the delay will have to be.) A competent traffic engineer, using safety as the guide, should set the lights appropriately.
Do you get a lot of senior citizens and blind/deaf people running into traffic where you're from?
Yes. So much so that the city put up signs saying "Warning, Senior Citizens Center, please slow down" and "Deaf People Near." With senior citizens, you tend to have folks who aren't completely in control of their mental facilities, and they sometimes run out in front of cars.
I'd argue that more than simple law enforcement the problem would be solved if a few steps were taken forward.
Having law enforcement officers, instead of contractors who are paid from the proceeds would be a much better solution to the problem. A person going two miles more than the speed limit can be dangerous, depending on the road conditions, but it is doubtful in all but a very limited number of situations. Hell, most people don't have accurate speedometers, so even traffic officers give people some leeway (usually about 5mph.) There is no way a traffic camera, or a contractor sitting miles away after the fact can determine the conditions of the road based on looking through a soda straw.
One would be to increase the speed limit at least large, well conserved roads and places where this is feasible
The speed limit is usually set by the traffic engineers (who aren't law enforcement officers,) who usually base it on an average of the speeds over a set period of time. This doesn't take into consideration the conditions of the road at any particular time. Thus, during rush-hour, the speed limit on the road may be dangerously high, while at other times where the road is free and clear, the speed limit might be too low. To get around this, most states have "hedge" speed-laws which state that you should only go as fast as a reasonable person would, given the conditions of the road. Much harder for a police officer to prove than a simple number, but in many ways, much safer.
and the second would be an educative campaign.
Nail hit squarely on the head on this one. But the education must be based on reality. All too often, the education they offer is based on the same talking points the MPAA uses for "streaming movies..." They don't like it, so nobody should do it. Most people who speed know very well why they are doing it, and know the risks. However, they likely ignore risks or genuinely don't know all of them. The reason the speed limit on a certain road is set to 25 mph may be because senior citizens or blind/deaf people live in the area, and 25 mph gives plenty of room to stop if one of them should happen to run out in front of traffic. The guy going 35 mph may not realize this (or maybe they are driving an expensive car, are rich, and don't care.)
As for red lights allowing better reaction time (ie: NOT decreasing the yellow light) would greatly reduce any issues. But that's not in the best interests of the Govt and the corporations behind the sheme, is it?
The best way is to go all-way red for a period of time, say 15 seconds, then switch to green. I've actually seen this used quite effectively on the intersection a couple blocks from my house, which is near a fire-station. When the fire-truck is running down the street with its lights and sirens on, the intersection becomes all-way-red (well, usually except the way the truck is going, so cars can get out of its way,) and everyone has plenty of time to stop. Once the truck goes through the intersection, the lights switch to green again and traffic moves normally. I am not sure why this hasn't caught on, but I am sure it has something with the best interests of the corporations.
In other words, copyright should work like it used to: you must register your work to get copyright protection, and you can search the list of registrations.
Along with a periodic (yearly) property tax/tax on sales to help manage the system, I'm good with this. The property/sales tax would prevent copyright works with little or no commercial value from being locked up indefinitely because the owner is too much of a moron to properly sell the work. We can even offer them a reasonable amount of time, tax free, like say 17 years, before they have to start paying. Considering the average work disappears from the market in less than 17 years, that seems pretty reasonable.