Y2HH

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Dropping affiliates doesn't affect Amazon? I thought Amazon makes money on those transactions. Perhaps you are forgetting that business works to make a profit. Are they just doing it as a charity? What advantage is there to the state to require it's local businesses to charge sales tax, but allow others not to? Hey Illinois customers, buy from an Illinois business who has a store in your neighborhood AND PAY SALES TAX! Buy from an out of state company and don't pay sales tax! BRILLIANT TAX POLICY! So why should Amazon move to Illinois? They benefit under the old system by selling to Illinois customers from out of state. If Amazon doesn't give a s*** about losing 10,000 affiliates, it must mean they do not sell that much through them. Amazon replaces those affiliates without even trying...and amazon pays the affiliates to be part of their program, amazon can ship the same products from another affiliate just as easily. If it affected amazon more than the tax did, they wouldn't be so quick to just jettison them all...yet thats exactly what they did. Look up the amazon affiliate program and you'll get a better idea how it works.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) EVERY STATE CAN'T PASS THE SAME LAW SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU MISS THE f***ING POINT...AGAIN. Seriously already...you continue to miss the point, whether out of purposeful ignorance or outright ignorance. Unless every state passes it, it doesn't affect Amazon...therefore, IT WILL NEVER *EVER* GET PASSED BY EVERY STATE, BECAUSE THEY REALIZE IT'S ADVANTAGOUS TO NOT PASS IT. If this isn't done federally...IT WILL NOT f***ING WORK. It's pretty obvious by now you don't understand how business works, but thanks for trying. You refuse to apply reality/logic to this law. They've accidentally created a law that allows neighboring states to give businesses incentive to do business in their state, instead of the state trying to tax them. This means that some states will NEVER pass such a law...as it's advantageous to them to NOT pass it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) Except for the people hit by the bombs. But they don't count since we're not selling arms to them. Just stop.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) California struck it down because the last governor followed the "I can't approve any new taxes" policy. The flaw of course is that every other state can say the same thing. You still can't get around this. In 2011 Amazon threatened to terminate roughly 10,000 of its affiliates located in California if legislation pending in the state legislature to deem such affiliates as constituting a nexus that requires the collection of sales tax is passed. California affiliates would no longer receive commissions on referrals to Amazon. In the end, it has to be done in every state...or once again, amazon doesn't lose here...but the businesses tied to amazon do...and the states those businesses are in. You can keep going on and on here...but you are still failing to see why I maintain that unless it's done in every state, it doesn't hurt amazon.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:04 PM) However, at least a half dozen additional states, including the big gun (California) are likely to pass a similar law in the next few months. California actually passed that law in 2009 but it was vetoed by the failed governor at the time. You don't realize why California stuck that down, either. Amazon is located in Seattle, not in California...and told California that they will yank all 11,000+ affiliates from them if they pass it. So, when they do pass it, they will do the same thing to CA that they just did to IL. California decided it was better to keep the businesses alive at the time. Once again bringing us back to my original point...it cant be a few states...it cant even be 25 states...it has to be so many states that amazon cannot avoid it anymore.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) French actually fired the first strikes from their aircraft that destroyed tanks. It's more convenient to pretend they didn't, and merely did a few night time flyovers.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) When you are travelling and take it with you, you probably paid their state sales tax. As long as it is equal to, or less than Illinois, no additional tax is required. Plus, Illinois state sales tax is only 6.25%, most places will be equal to or greater with their state and local taxes added. Now if you buy something over the internet or mail order, they will not charge you either local or your state tax, so you would be responsible for the Illinois use tax. So I wonder why, if the law is from 1955, why Illinois needed a new law for internet sales. Wait, unless it is because they are requiring the seller to collect and reimburse. Because, Tex...The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that companies without a physical presence in a state aren't required to collect state sales taxes. What happened here was Amazon, who collects the money, doenst have a physical presence in IL, it's affiliates do, which it doesn't own...they merely sell through Amazon. Call it a grey area...but it's a law that needed to be reexamined in light of the fact that this has been going on close to a decade now. However, it's being passed on state levels, so when only 4 states out of 50 tell Amazon that it's affiliates have to collect taxes for Amazon, Amazon simply says no thanks, we no longer want your business...and they cut off the affiliate, because Amazon knows it can ship that same product from another state that doesn't require the tax.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) No sh*t, you skipped over the part of how I am still paying the same bill as I was 8 years ago despite getting all of those capabilities. I knew there would come a time that I agree with the guy with the Bruce Wayne avatar from when he was in American Psycho.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) So going forward we should intervene in all civil wars? Yes. Welcome to the USA, AKA the World Police Department. It's been like this for a long time now...did you think your pal Obama was gonna play the game differently or something?

The reason why most people think wireless is more expensive today is because they didn't have a smartphone years ago...but I did, so I know the difference in cost...and they're less today than they were then. Not to mention 500x faster. The issue stems from the fact you probably had a dataless phone with some T9 Texts...if you had a phone like that now, your bill would be like 20$ a month.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) Has the price of wireless service gone up or down over the last decade? I'd say that the bare minimum plans have pretty much tracked inflation, while the upper level plans have skyrocketed in price. Down. I edited my post to reflect this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) How many mergers have we seen undone in the past 25 years because of excessive upwards price pressure? The answer winds up being "we need less regulation not more competition". Then prices go up farther. Well...I'm not entirely sure where you get this...but most consumer products have become cheaper, not more expensive. 10 years ago a 50" Plasma TV cost about 10 grand. Today they cost about 600$. Same goes for computer products, etc. And we aren't talking about lesser quality. Newer faster processors are often cheaper than their predecessors were at release. The only thing I see getting more expensive is automobiles...well, and food/gas, but I don't consider them in the same class of products. For the record, my cell phone bill is 150$ with 2 iPhones and 1 other phone on it. 7 years ago, my Verizon bill was 150$ with just 1 smartphone on it. Again...cheaper.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) They don't have to officially do the backroom deal to notice when their only real competitor raised their prices by 25%. They sure don't...but if we see nothing but upward price pressure after this merger, they'd risk being busted up again...I don't think it's a risk they'd be willing to take again. Then again, you never really know...maybe they've forgotten what happened last time, after all, it was a long time ago...and they may be egotistical enough to think it won't happen again.

I think this is hype/sensationalist storyline here... Peavy is sore, IMO, because it's been a long time since he's 1) pitched, 2) used the muscles in the same way he's using them now after the surgery, esp the tiny rotator cuff muscle. I think he will be fine...and is still on my expected timeline to start -- last week of April/first week of May. Anyone that has a surgery like he had cannot work out the same way (if at all), and their muscles break down over time, so when he gets back at it, he will fatigue faster and have longer lasting soreness. It will be a while before he's back up to full speed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) Thanks Y2HH...I think we are sort of on the same plane here...doing something to differentiate yourself from the other candidates helps a bit I think. Well, I'd love to say I had the guts to do that again (showing up to a job interview in jeans and a baseball jersey), but I can't say I ever have...I don't know what it was that day that I did it, either, because it's not something I'd consider doing again. That time, though...I just felt like, "You know what...f*** it...they're gonna get the real me this time and if I don't get the job, I don't care." That attitude probably helped me land that job, too...which is the funniest part. But I think what your considering doing it probably right. Why fake it when they already know your real personality? All that can possibly do is tell them you're desperate, which isn't something I'd personally want to convey in a job interview for a promotion...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) Well, I work for the company already, so it's not like I am some guy off the street. They know I am a responsible, hard-working employee, which is mainly what you're trying to convey when you wear a suit to an interview. For the last position I interviewed for a few months back, I just wore khakis and a wool sweater, and I did get the offer, but this is a bit more high-profile position. I just hate showing up in a fancy suit for a job where you're not going to even wear a tie on a daily basis...I view it sort of the same way I view the resume...it's just pretending to be something you aren't. I dunno...I am a bit torn here though. I'd recommend dressing a bit nicer than normal, but I wouldn't go full on suit for this...considering they already know you and work with you. Last job before this one, I showed up on a Friday afternoon in jeans and a Sox jersey. In a waiting room with a few guys wearing suits... I got the job. Oh, and the interviewer(s) were die hard Detroit fans, they said they were amused by my guts to wear that to the interview after the fact. One of the interviewers loved me...said I'd be the perfect fit, since I knew the job and had an amusing personality...the other (a girl) said she hated me, because I was a cocky son of a b****, but still thought I'd fit in good in an office full of cocky son of a b****es (like herself). We later ended up liking each other quite a bit and were pretty flirtatious. So like I said, it's all in what you think you can pull off.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) Job interview this afternoon. I usually try to wear something just a step more formal than is required for the position on a daily basis. Our company is fairly casual as far as businesses go. Daily dress would be nice pants and a nice button down, but mostly no tie. So for the interview, I was thinking of wearing a shirt and tie, with a cardigan....sort of a modern look, but not so formal as a suit. What do you guys think, is a suit is the way to go, or can I go with something a little less formal? It all depends on what you think you can pull off. I've shown up to interviews in a suit more suited for "partying", and in street cloths. For the record, I landed both gigs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Yes because he agrees with me. And I am excellent. You still aren't the best, though.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) Lost in my birthday festivities yesterday was this excellent editorial by Josh Marshall. You call that an excellent editorial? Meh.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:00 AM) Dont think in the short term. In the long term, ALL US carriers are going LTE, and eventually voice and data will eb going over LTE. Sprint is Wi-Max, but there are VERY heavy rumors that they are going to bolt for LTE. So, in 3-5 years, all US carriers will be LTE. I'm not thinking short term, GSM isn't going away anytime soon, and right now is right now. 3-5 years is 3-5 years. For the next FEW years, they now have a GSM monopoly. LTE is here, but it's going to grow slowly, especially until the LTE chipsets mature and don't suck battery like they are right now. That new Verizion 4G phone sucks...when using the LTE network, the phone has a total life of about 2 hours from full charge. That's next to useless. WiMax is 3G.5, it's not 4G, and it never was.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) So, as far as I can tell, you're saying that it's actually easier and more legal for telecom companies to wind up price fixing, because data isn't a publicly traded commodity...yet somehow I'm supposed to think that ATT and VZN will be scared of the threat of legal action? It's easier because they can just decide to set a price, where Big Oil can't just set a price...because the street sets it. That said, it's REALLY easy to get busted if you make a back room deal to price fix. I don't think AT&T and Verizon would do it...they may, but I just don't see it happening. Just one executive, secretary, janitor or someone that overhears has to blow the whistle...and your kingdom falls apart...and the company replaces you and anyone involved within a days time... Then you get to spend some time in jail and lose all your money fighting it in court. Most executives have less than zero interest in price fixing these days, putting their jobs on the line knowing they will probably get busted. Back in the day, executives didn't make millions per year and have millions upon millions in stock, with stock prices in the mid 30's...so the risk to price fix may have been worth the possible reward...these days, they already have everything.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) Getting caught "price-fixing" these days just means that companies got sloppy. The ways around it are just too easy. If the oil industry can get away with uniform price changes across stations, all happening in the same order every time, then all you really need is a few lawyers who know the law well to slip around them. Sorry but the oil industry cannot price fix the same way that AT&T and Verizon can, since oil is traded on the public commodities exchange. So bad example. Big Oil can try to spread fear, etc...but in the end, it's not easy to price fix something anyone can purchase on a commodities market. AT&T and Verizon, however, don't deal in commodities that people can buy, like "I just bought 500000 gigs of data" and I'm gonna hoard it because it's a finite commodity. Apples and Oranges here. Their price fixing it much simpler...you charge 50$ for data...and so will we!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) A $100 million fine that was, like most fines, small relative to the size of the company and the money they made off the plan? And your best example comes from 1993? 100M back in 1993 was a lot of money. So no, in realitive size, it was quite a massive fine. You're comparing how big the company is today. In 1993 that stock was trading at about 9$ and the company was worth 1/10th what it is now. Anyway...the reason I offered that example that old is because companies don't lobby together and price fix...BECAUSE it shows you companies don't want to get indicted on price fixing, as you just f***ing said AT&T and Verizon would basically do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) Until they realize that they can lobby together on the same issues. I'm sure Verizon and AT&T want to get indicted on price fixing. Ask Archer Daniels how that worked out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:15 AM) Qaddafi's current "Compound" is going to wind up being just another monument to the failure of the U.S. to get him with missiles. I guess we will see...