An amen regarding frame rates. Higher resolution without an increase in frame rates will only make the current motion blur fix with current low frame rates even more unacceptable especially for sports and action movies.
38 posts • joined 22 Aug 2011
The U.S. Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 did not prohibit states from requiring out-of-state online retaillers to collect sales tax on in-state purchases. The 1998 act prohibited states and local governments from taxing internet access. This is a big distinction and a source of confusion in the minds of the press, taxpayers, and even the legislators that passed the law in the first place.
There has been no U.S. federal law enacted to limit a state's ability to require the collection of sales tax on internet purchases. The restriction that currently exist is based on judical interpretations of Contitutional restrictions, e.g., Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. In general, the Quill decision provides that a company must have a phyisical presence in a state before the state can require the company to collect sales tax on in-state purchases. Quill was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 and related to mail order purchases, but has been applied to internet sales by lower courts.
4k is nice if you want to look at still pictures or watch Slow TV—notice that is what is typically showing when they demo these TVs. But the industry needs to deal with upping the framerates, which begins with shooting the content at higher frame rates. An action scene at 4k but shot at 24fps looks like stop motion animation.
It may take awhile based on the reaction to the 48fps Hobbit movies so far. Some viewers have grown accustomed to the surreal experience that 24fps provides in movies, which maybe appropriate for a chickflic or as a visual effect for certain movies, but actions scenes require high FPS. For me after watching the first two Hobbits in 3D/48fps, I can't stand to watch any action scene in 24fps especially in 3D.
This is not a tax that Amazon pays, it is a sales tax that they must collect from the customer. Amazon has benefited from avoiding sales tax collection over the years by asserting that they have no physical presence in most jurisdictions in the U.S. that have a sales tax. However, many U.S. states have been successsful in claiming that Amazon's use of "Associates" or click thru affiliates in a state gives Amazon the physical presence that is typically necessary to require a seller to collect sales tax.
Most U.S. consumers that have been able to purchase goods "sales tax-free" over the internet, are actually required to self assess the tax and pay it to the taxing authority, but only a small fraction of a percentage actual do. So the states want to plug this "loophole" in their view.
I've been a corporate tax adviser for 20+ years and if I could I would put myself on the unemployment line by eliminating all taxes on business income. Why does a society want to handicap the engine of the economy with income taxes? Either tax consumption, transactions (VAT, sales/use tax, excise tax), or maybe personal non business income). Taxes drives business decisions as much as labor costs, intellectual property protections, or logistics. Businesses should live or die by the value of the products or services they provide and not by how their business is sliced and diced throughout the world to minimize income taxes. In the U.S. the combined federal and state corporate income tax rate is around 40%, which makes the U.K. and not just Ireland look like a tax haven.
The other change I would make is to make tax transparent. Corporate transparency is always touted by a variety of groups - often the government. The same should by had in how a government taxes its people. Taxes collected via withholdings on a paycheck, VAT built into the sales price, or taxes collected by a third party "hide" the true amount of tax we all pay. If each of us had to separately pay taxes or at least have it itemized as a separate item we purchase, there would be a much different discussion about the role of government and the value of the services it provides. That is why ad valorem taxes (property taxes) are so unpopular because people have to separately pay the tax independent of any other transaction.
Here we go again, another clueless article on U.S taxation. What Apple did is no different than if I decided to borrow money to use for a vacation instead of using the after tax proceeds of selling some appreciated investment I own. If I borrow the money, then I don't have to sell my investments and pay tax on the gain. Do I have some sort of duty to arrange my financial affairs in such a way as to make sure I pay the highest tax possible? If I don't then, why does Apple?
Marriage will always be discriminatory even if you allow gay marriage. If marriage is statutory, it will be defined and being defined it will draw a circle around those that can be married and those that can't. Gay marriage simply expands the "circle of love" so to speak, but it doesn't make it "fair", "equitable", or "non discriminatory".
Bloomberg writer is clueless
Facebook can't get a deduction for U.S. federal income tax purposes until the stock options or other forms of equity compensation are reported as taxable income to the employee. This is the same thing that occurs when Facebook pays cash for wages—they report the income to the employee and they get an equal deduction on their return. What makes this more complicated and the reason why Bloomberg sensationalized it, is due to the differences between how U.S. financial reporting rules treat equity compensation and how it is treated for U.S. income tax purposes. The bottom line is that Facebook is not getting any special treatment or using a loophole for tax purposes unless deducting compensation expense in the same amount that was reported as income to the employee is a "loophole". No one was complaining when Facebook was paying taxes when they were reporting a financial statement loss. Why do people get up in arms when the timing differences between the two different methods of accounting "flip" and Facebook gets a tax refund when they report financial statement income.
This relates to internet access only—not sales tax.
This has got to be the most misunderstood law over the years. This law only prevents states from taxing your internet access fee that you pay to your local cable or phone company. It has nothing to do with whether a state can require an online retail to collect sales tax on purchases of goods and services over the internet. This issue of sales tax collection for online purchases is also being currently debated with the Marketplace Fairness Act the most likely bill to pass. This bill, if passed, will generally require online purchases to be subject to sales tax collection.
Generally you can tell the age of folks around the office by how often they use the mouse to navigate around Excel. Those that cut their teeth on early versions of 1-2-3, tend to use keyboard navigation and shortcuts. I usually get a "how'd you do that" from the whippersnappers in the office as they observe me work a spreadsheet. Also, why do I have to press the tab key so many times on this website to get to the submit button to send this message—there's got to be a better way to activity the submit comment button.
Just to pile on to this thread . . .
My little Toshiba NB305 has been my workhorse portable device for 3 years. Cellular internet, 40gb SSD, 2GB DRAM and Win7Pro has made this a very capable device for most all of my computing in spite of the little Atom CPU. Yes I have invested about US$400 on it (not counting the windows licence I have with MS ActionPack), but an equivalent ipad or small notebook would be much less functional for me. I know it is not sexy but that has its advantages as I'm far less concerned about this device being nicked. Hopefully the manufacturers were right about the lack of demand in the market and I'll be able to buy a couple at discounted prices.
Obama nixed moon and mars plans that Bush put in to place during his first term.
Now a "space policy expert" sees Obama as NASA's messiah for doing what Bush was already planning on doing. I think Obama is looking for a "legacy" during his second term.
This articulated my thoughts well regarding the fuss about Venus: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/06/04/154282601/the-venus-transit-who-cares
The highlight of viewing the transit through my scope was the 3D effect of Venus crossing the perimeter of the sun (between 1st and 2nd contact for you science folks). Otherwise it was simply a black dot on the sun.
You see this in the states as well. In dash GPS devices that are not fully functional while the car is moving. Thank you nanny Toyota, but I may have a passenger that can safely operate a GPS while in motion.
None of this is new. Decades ago I would see people reading books, maps, etc while driving long before there was anything more than a push button radio for technology. The problem is the driver not the tool. Have a distracted driver law on the books and call it good. We don't need a separate rule for every different tool that comes out each year.
You can't assume that the "monitoring group" Media Matters is unbiased or doesn't have its own agenda for reporting this topic in this manner.
Although, I agree that the MSM is not properly covering this issue. Media Matters should be more properly described as a "left leaning political media monitoring group".
Ubiquitous corporate charitable donations are a needless reduction of shareholder wealth, but that doesn’t stop executives from using other people’s money to fund their pet charities. If executives want to have fun with other people’s money they should get into politics and not commerce. Given that a couple of significant shareholders of Google may have motives that are unrelated to profits but are nonetheless far from benevolent, they may be fine with their CEO spouting some “'I'm not sure Google is trying to maximize profits” mantra.