turc1656

23 ms·

151.
by turc1656 7y ago
This really pisses me off because you don't even have an option to not do business with the DMV. Even if you don't drive (highly unlikely in FL), you still need a non-driving ID card so there's no way to avoid getting swept
152.
by turc1656 7y ago
It struck me as odd as well, but the article mentions near the end that it apparently does happen from time to time, which I was not aware of. I share your viewpoint, though. Not sure why the USSC would ever ask the executive branch wheth
153.
by turc1656 7y ago
I find this data peculiar. It's not like we see spikes of murders after horror movies get released or anything like that. All forms of violent crime have been on the decline for decades virtually without exception. And even shows th
154.
by turc1656 7y ago
On a related note - I've had the opposite experience but it wasn't with telecom related services - it was cloud services. A friend of mine started a business that focuses on the highly anticipated luxury clothing and sneaker rele
155.
by turc1656 7y ago
I could be wrong, but I believe the logic behind this is that the law is still paramount and because the person did in fact break the law (in this case a felony crime), they should have to apply for their conviction to be expunged and mak
156.
by turc1656 7y ago
From what you wrote, it doesn't sound like there's much of a problem other than you not liking his general attitude. If he was actually instructing you to do stuff like a manager would, that would be something. But it doesn&#x27
157.
by turc1656 7y ago
In the U.S., it's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for things like slander, defamation, and libel. "Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware th
158.
by turc1656 7y ago
I don't know anything about Honderich, but that sounds like a very cliche insult that is typical of when someone doesn't want to actually take the time to respond to someone else's viewpoint in detail so it's far easier
159.
by turc1656 7y ago
I see that while Scruton was sacked, Eaton was only forced to apologize for his misrepresentation and had to take down a photo from Twitter. Sounds fair, right?
160.
by turc1656 7y ago
You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...
161.
by turc1656 7y ago
You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...
162.
by turc1656 7y ago
You are correct. I was wrong. I found an explanation of it but can no longer edit my original comment. https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...
163.
by turc1656 7y ago
"Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws" That's pretty vague. And nothing else on the government sit
164.
by turc1656 7y ago
Good point. I took a look. He appears to be 0.5% more effective than me doing it myself with software. Doesn't sound like much, but it's far more than the $400 or so we would normally be paying for this. EDIT - 0.5% meaning my
165.
by turc1656 7y ago
He just files for us so no side by side because I'm not going to do it in tandem to compare because that's what his job is. But I think for us the reason is that he plans in advance what we should be doing during the year to mini
166.
by turc1656 7y ago
That law protects against retaliation only against certain protected actions by the employees. Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on that list. The Google employees simply didn't like what their company was doi
167.
by turc1656 7y ago
I used to use TurboTax and painstakingly enter everything imaginable and read everything to make sure I wasn't missing anything and would consistently get back around $4,500 to $5,000 in total between Federal and state. Using him, we
168.
by turc1656 7y ago
Agree, but there's more than just itemization that can be done.
169.
by turc1656 7y ago
That's a fair point and I think it comes down to the word usage - i.e. dishonest vs misleading. I would agree that they are either misleading or intentionally obfuscatory. I would not, however, say that they are dishonest because to
170.
by turc1656 7y ago
If you do it quick and dirty, then yeah. But I am pretty sure most people would find even the 1040 a bit intimidating. The problem is that the tax code is more than 75,000 pages long. No one knows all of it and there are parts that are u
171.
by turc1656 7y ago
That restatement is pretty accurate and I would agree with it. And I wasn't saying dishonesty isn't bad. I was saying the implication the article makes that they are dishonest is something I disagree with. So "these are da
172.
by turc1656 7y ago
Nah, you're missing the forest when looking at the trees. Go bigger. Why the hell is the tax code so damn complicated that it requires certified experts and special software to perform personal tax filings? I can see the case for
173.
by turc1656 7y ago
I agree with the base assessment the article poses which is that dark patterns are used to get you to pay. But the underlying implication is clear from the tone and wording in the article - that this is a bad or dishonest thing. First off,
174.
by turc1656 8y ago
The article is short so doesn't really delve into what happens after those deaths - specifically investigation into cause or the legal ramifications. I was hoping to get that info because the first thing that popped into my mind was th
175.
by turc1656 8y ago
Don't worry - we kind of deserve to be singled out a bit. I'm an American and I was recently in Amsterdam with a bunch of my coworkers and everywhere we went we were definitely the "loud, obnoxious Americans". It'
176.
by turc1656 8y ago
"...they will work with you to get you under compliance" Sure, as long as they are doing so in good faith. An act like this is clearly not in any sort of good-faith attempt to be in compliance with the law. It's obviously
177.
by turc1656 8y ago
Oh I definitely agree. Both should ideally be charged because these people were acting on behalf of the company and were in management positions, which makes the company legally liable for their actions. But if I only get to choose one to
178.
by turc1656 8y ago
Notice the difference: " Top executives of leading tech companies secretly agreed among themselves not to hire each other’s employees" "...brought charges against the companies " They should have been indicting both, o
179.
by turc1656 8y ago
"...no way of gaining access to the enemy's devices without that method also being applicable to everyone else." That's only true of some methods like using exploits and other vulnerabilities, or mass-surveillance styl
180.
by turc1656 8y ago
Thank you. I know you weren't arguing. And it wasn't rhetorical - I really did want to know who uses it because I've never heard of it. Thanks for the info.

More ›