davidw

tommikele said:

22july2013 said:

However I think the restriction on card counting apps should be removed. The reason given below is that card counters are "illegal." I don't live in the US, but I googled whether card counting is illegal, and the answer was no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Legal_status Wikipedia documents no country in the world where card counting is "illegal." So the Apple rules are wrong when they claim that card counting apps are "illegal gambling aids".

It is illegal if you use a device to do it and even if it is legal a casino can ban you if they determine you are doing it. Device to no device Is not relevant other than a device makes it a crime rather than just a violation of the casino's rules. In your head doesn't matter and they are not required to prove anything to anyone.. If they say that's what you are doing then that's what you are doing.

Is it right to ban someone who isn't cheating and just has superior skill that flips the odds? Not really, but too bad. That's the way it is. Don't go to casinos or gamble in apps if you don't like it.

I'm pretty sure it's still true today, but when I was doing most of my BlackJack playing (and counting) days in the late 70's and 80's during winter ski season in South Tahoe, a "device" could be nothing more than an index card you have in your shirt pocket that list BlackJack basic strategies, that you pulled out see if you should split 7's against a dealer 7 showing. 

Even though one could buy books on how to "Beat The Dealer" in all the casinos gift shops and they handed out free little pocket size card with BlackJack basic strategy to help increase ones odds of winning, one cannot take out and reference the book or the card, during play. The Casino knows that over 90% of the people that read books on how to count cards in order to  "Beat the Dealer", will not be any good at it but are still going bet money on the BlackJack table, just to prove the casino right. 

You are right, even if you count the cards in your head, the casino can ban you from playing if they think you are counting the cards. It's their rules. Even if you're counting and losing most of your hands.

Here's why. It's easy to spot a counter by the varying amount of their bets. Card counters will increase their bet when the count is for them and decease their bet when the count is against them. Counting cards do not change the outcome of the dealt cards, but if you know that you have a better chance than the dealer of winning the next hand based on the cards than have already been dealt, you increase your bet. And bet the minimum when the count indicate the dealer has the better chance of winning. It doesn't matter if a card counter loses most of his hands, so long as he wins most of his big bets and loses most of his small bets, he will end up beating the dealer. Casinos don't like this. 

I don't ever remember anyone stating that Microsoft and Sony are the "gatekeepers" to the console gaming market. Microsoft and Sony owns about the same marketshare of  the "console gaming market"  as Apple and Google does of the "mobile gaming market". And guess what, they charge the same 30% "tax" for game developers to be on their X-Box and PlayStation platforms.

PLUS,  console games can cost up to $60 AND it cost a minimum of $60 a year for a subscription for an online account, to play online games with a game console. And one would still need to pay for some of the more popular online games. From which the owner of the platform will "tax" the game developer 30%. 

AND, over 70% of the gamers are playing on a game console. Even though it's the most expensive way to play games. While less than 30% of the gamers are playing on computers or mobile devices. 

Then we have this, about the maker and seller of the X-Box itself, none the less. It actually sounds worse than what any free app on a mobile device does.  

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2060363/what-data-does-microsofts-xbox-services-collect-we-break-it-down.html

flydog said:

heli0s said:

The duopoly of online advertising coordinating efforts to maintain their power over the marketplace kind of makes the government's case, doesn't it?

No.  Monopoplies and duopolies are not per se illegal.  What is illegal is using the lack of competition in ways prohibited under antritrust law, for example, conspiring to fix prices and tying the sale of products to other products.  The government also needs to prove that consumers were harmed by the illegal conduct.  Since no one pays for FaceBook, the government has to establish some other kind of harm, and that's where the case is a bit weak. 

But the "consumers" in this scenario are the advertisers. By fixing the price it cost to advertise with Facebook or Google, they were harmed by the lack of competition with online advertising. Ultimately, this affects the price the consumers has to pay for products and services that are advertised online. 

It can also go the other way. Google and FaceBook can combine to keep the price of online advertising so low, that no other competitors can get in and make a profit selling advertising online. The consumers are not really harmed by this but it's still a violation of anti-trust laws. Microsoft giving away IE for free using the monopoly they have with Windows and crushing Netscape ability to make a profit, for example. (Not to mention MS making it difficult for other browsers to be on or to work properly with Windows.) Ultimately, over 80% of computer users were using the free IE, that came pre-installed with Windows. 

Being "free" has nothing to do with determining whether the consumers were harmed. Limiting consumers choice does. And the "consumers" in anti-trust can either be users of a product or other businesses that wants to market a similar product. 

karmadave said:

Most employees will remain where they are or work from home. My own company, Dell, is based in Austin but has operations globally. This really doesn't change much. Companies will still pay state income taxes, on their local operations, and employees will still pay taxes in the state they reside. That said, I agree that California could take steps to make the state much more business friendly. 

Not in CA. In CA, you pay income taxes on all income made in CA, no matter where you legally reside. If you reside in NV, with no State income taxes, then all your CA income is taxed in CA. If you reside in a State with a State income tax, then you get to deduct what State income taxes you paid in another State, from your CA income tax. In CA, one don't even have to set foot in CA, to be subject to CA income taxes. 

In fact, if you are a resident of NV, worked in CA but also had income doing work in NV, CA will tax that NV income. Even if you are not a resident of CA based on where you live, CA consider you a tax resident based on where to make most of your income and thus all your income is subject to CA, tax as though you resided in CA. It is said that you have a better chance fighting the IRS than you do fighting CA Franchise Tax Board. 

CA once taxed all CA pension, no matter what State the State workers moved to. CA is also trying to pass an "exit tax", where a wealthy person must still pay a portion of his wealth to CA, for ten years after moving out of CA.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/california-wealth-and-exit-tax-would-be-an-unconstitutional-disaster

CA do not consider you a resident of another State, for income tax purposes, until 18 months after moving out of CA. Even though you are a legal resident of another State after 6 months of living there.  

If you move out of CA for say 2 years and made a lot of money from selling stocks from a portfolio you had while residing in CA, if you move back to CA, CA will go after you for back taxes. CA will claim that you only moved out of CA for tax avoidance purposes and you have always intended to return to CA.  


Look up "jock tax', pertaining to profession athletes. If for e.g., Tim Harden was getting paid $500K per game, every time the Rockets plays a CA team in CA, he has to pay CA income tax on that income. It doesn't matter if he resides in TX. On the other hand, if Steph Curry was also getting paid $500K per game, then CA will tax him on every game he plays, no matter what State its played in. He gets to deduct any State taxes he pays in other States, but his entire income is subject to CA income taxes.

If The GSW plays the Rockets in TX, Tim Harden owes no TX State income taxes on the $500K he will make, but Steph Curry will have to pay CA State income taxes on all the $500K he made, because TX has no State income tax from which he had to pay. While with Tim Harden, only the games he played in CA are subject to CA taxes, with Steph Curry all the games he plays are subject to CA State income taxes. Unless he plays in NY, where the State and local taxes there might be the same or more than CA taxes.   


Now for businesses, it's about the same. If your business headquarter resides in CA, then all your profits are subject to CA corporate taxes. If your headquarter resides outside CA, then only the profits you made in CA are subject to CA corporate taxes. So with Oracle moving their headquarter to TX, Oracle will only have to pay CA taxes on profits made in CA. The profits they make in other States will no longer to taxed by CA, though can be taxed by the States where the profit was made. But CA has one of the highest State corporate tax at 8.84%. So essentially, with a headquarter in CA, all your profits is subject to CA 8.84% State corporate tax, no matter which State you made the profit. And this don't include the high cost of operating a business in CA.

Not only is CA not tax friendly toward business, they are not too tax friendly toward its residents. At least those residents with taxable income. There is no capital gains tax in CA. All capital gains (long and short term) are considered ordinary income and thus can move your other income up the tax brackets. On the other hand, Feds tax long term capital gains at 15% (at least for my income level) and what long term capital gains I have will not drive my other ordinary income up the tax brackets. In other words, If I had income of $1,050,000 and $1,000,000 was from long term capital gains, the other $50,000 will be tax at the marginal tax rate for $50,000 and not at the marginal tax rate of $1,000,000. Not so in CA. 

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

flippysch said:

mobird said:

hammeroftruth said:

Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 

It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.

The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.

The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.  

@davidw You would have done well to do a bit more research before declaring "The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition", because they absolutely are according to Constitutional law.

Militia Clause 16: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

If in doubt this paper will explain it for you: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html

Notice I put "militia" in quotes. That's to signify "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment, though it was not clear. Not as used in the "Militia Clause" in Article One of the Constitution or anywhere else. 

Ask yourself this, if the "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment includes government organizations like the US Army, Marines, Navy and later to include Air Force and National Guards, why would the framers of the Constitution need to state that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the "people" that are members of such organizations to keep and bear arms, when the government issues them the arms? It wouldn't make sense to have the government issue arms to members of those "militia" and then not allow then to keep and bear them, thus we need a Constitutional amendment that state that the government can not infringe upon any rights those members to keep and bear arms. If there was an issue with these members keeping and bearing arms, then the government could just not issue them any arms. 

Or are we to construe that if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, the government could force the members of its "militia" to use harsh languages to ward off any enemy because the government would not have to arm the people in their own militias. 

The most logical definition of 'militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to people (like in we the people .....) rights to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, when called upon. Like back in the days of the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Army (as it was known back then as there was no United States yet) fought along side militia consisting of private citizens, that in most cases had to supply their own arms in battle. This is the "militia" that the 2nd Amendment most likely reference. The framers saw the importance of the private citizens rights to keeping and bearing arms and thought best not for the government to infringe upon that right. 

Notice that the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights to the "people". The Bill of Rights serve to limit the power of our government. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "people" right to keep and bear arms, that right is already recognized. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the "people" right to keep and bear arms. Just like how the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to infringe upon the peoples recognized rights to freedom of religion and speech. 

Now one might argue that we no longer need private citizens militia to protect the security of a free State. We have government arm forces, both Federal and State to do that. So the 2nd is now obsolete. But remember back to the Revolutionary War, the militia  that fought along side the Continental Army were fighting against the tyranny of their own government, the British. The British did not recognize the U.S. of America until after we won the war. This did not escape the framers of the Constitution, in that the security of a free State might also mean that the "people" might have to protect their free State, when our own government is no longer ...... of the people, by the people and for the people. They saw that having well armed people was the check and balance needed to keep the government in check. They did not foresee that their newly form government under the Constitution of the United States of America was infallible. If they did, they would not had needed to write in the Bill of Rights.