tss20147

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

I live in Virginia and all the grocery stores here do the same thing. It is listed on the shelf tag next to the item price.

Update: According to NIST, 21 of the 54 US states and territories have some form of unit pricing law.

To address a couple of concerns raised here.

There is a Small Seller Exemption. If you have less than $1,000,000 in remote sales during the preceding calendar year you are exempt from collection.

There are six certified service providers, including one free one, which can be used to calculate the required sales tax. The states certify these providers and agree to indemnify users against liability if the case of an error by the service provider.

Before a state can require collection they must change their code to be in compliance with the requirements of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Currently 24 states are compliant and could begin requiring collection if the bill passes.

For more information go to http://www.marketplacefairness.org/