Re: Re: Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
Oh, for a world where this had only occurred with copyright.
The conflating of natural rights and unnatural, granted, rights is at the root of the erosion of those natural rights. See the Canadian Human Rights Commission vs. Mark Steyn (or the right not to be offended vs. freedom of speech).
With the news that MEPs are beginning to look at copyright law more closely, I am beginning to wonder if the bureaucrats at the EC have decided to try a different tack. By getting each member state pass a 3 strikes independently the EC can then go to the MEPs with a "harmonisation" plan.
It is a new approach to EU rule number 1: If someone is blocking a move towards more EU integration and control - route around them.
Under your plan, Amazon/New Egg/etc could just set up a small "shipping office" in Delaware and charge the local sales tax from there -- which is nothing.
Yes, it's is known as tax competition.
According to the story, that's how much the State of Texas is getting paid already. If this is the problem, I don't think you've solved it.
The problem is that the tax code is so complicated that the is a dispute over what is owed by whom.
Texas doesn't get the $600M it thinks it's owed, and Delaware doesn't really gain anything either, except for whatever small, indirect boost there might be from having that single, skeleton-staffed shipping office operate in the state.
Lots of the indirect boosts off lots of shipping offices. Texans get to pay less tax and (shock-horror) spend that money on what they think is important. Delaware gets a lot of shipping offices, lots of tuckers travelling through, more use out of its airfields etc etc. Focusing only on a shipping office is short sighted - those indirect benefits soon add up.
You might want to look up the difference between free market capitalism and corporatism.
So should David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Clegg is on the right side of this one, however, not understanding that a free market means NOT cosying up to big business hampers his classical liberal credentials. Just has the same misunderstanding hampers Cameron's conservative credentials.
They would be absolutely aligned on this one but for a basic misunderstanding of economics.
I have some sympathy for MI5/6 in these cases. For their entire existence their mandate has been to gather intelligence in order to stop attacks against Britain. Until recently there hasn't been the automatic requirement that the intelligence gathered would be used in a court of law (or, indeed, for any other purpose) and, therefore, have to meet due process criteria.
That's not to say there shouldn't be such a requirement be but it does mean a change of mandate that should be debated in Parliament.
David Lammy is the MP for Tottenham and he is grandstanding. He has calculated, that if is makes a big enough fuss, he is in a win-win situation. Either Spurs drop the Tottenham name - he wins, or Spurs stay in Tottenham - he wins.
It is probably a moot point as West Ham will win the bid.
However, I can't imagine that Tottenham's residents and local council are that happy with David Lammy MP. Spurs are one of the few clubs in Britain which can rebrand very easily and they've been looking for a site to build a new stadium for a while now. Why would Spurs stay in Tottenham now? They aren't being made to feel welcome.
On a side note: I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong, and/or if the boundaries have changed at some point, but Everton F.C. haven't been located in Everton since... they were founded (I was about to write 1892 but they used to play at Anfield).
The "UK equivalents" are the Freedom of Information Act and a FoI request.
I think the reason for setting up the corporation is to head of the criticism they get whenever they release raw information. Almost all the commentators insist that no one will be have any incentive to create a user interface or investigate the data (and make it understandable to the mainstream media). Witness the tone of amazement in all today's Wikipedia anniversary stories - the MSM really doesn't understand why people contribute.
Yet another one to add to my list of charities not to give money to. Usually they get added for being majority funded by the taxpayer or my disagreement with the cause. This might be the first for "being bloody stupid".