I use Quicken for my record keeping and have used the Intuit TurboTax line of products, for many years. Once a year I am presented with, what I think, is an unreasonable value decision. A dilemma based on the fact that,at sometime in the past, I decided to use Intuit products. I must buy the Business variety of their software and at better than $110 and it grinds my twig to shell out that kind of cash just to calculate my taxes.

I decided to switch it up a little this year, and purchased HRBlock's @Home Premium & Business  which only cost $79.95. The primary reason being, besides the price, the packaging "appeared" to say that the software imported last years' data, directly from the my TurboTax files.

Yippee!! I was no longer handcuffed to Intuits' software. Or so I thought.

To my surprise the Business version contained more than just the 1120s, W3 and corresponding forms. It had all of the forms that are required to keep a corporation up to date with the IRS. VERY NICE! But it wasn't long before ran into problems.

While the personal version does as is advertised, the Business version didn't...or so I thought. I discovered this and made a phone call to H&R Block believing that I had found a bug in the software. The tier one customer support specialist, who answered, was just as perplexed as I. He read the packaging and sales information on the website and was at a loss to explain the failure. So he escalated my call to a 'Supervisor'. This is where things got dicey.

The woman who came on next, listened to my problem and began to parse what the packaging said about their product. Her line of reasoning was as accurate and as infuriating as any tax agent or lawyer with whom I have ever had the displeasure of dealing. The short answer is no matter what the packaging appeared to say or no matter how misleading it was, Block had not designed the product to import from TT Business. The description on the box applied only TT Personal. She presented me with a 'take it or leave it' option. Her demeanor was nasty and designed to just make me go away.

I hung up and never called back.

Since then I have had to deal with multiple un-resolved bugs in the software, ranging from incorrect forms, blank pages, little or no real interpretative support of tax fields along with coding errors that can only be resolved by deleting a form and re-entering the information from scratch.

Two examples:

• In the Business software /Select the Type Return/Payroll Return/941 Return. When I first installed the software there were no forms available for 2011. When I attempted to file my last quarter return it didn't work. "I just checked it and it seems they have finally gotten around to repairing the problem. Good on them, Too bad it took so long."
• In  the Personal Software /1099-B/Tell Us About This Sale/Special Type. If you tick any choice in this field the software will not recognize if this is ever changed to something else later. This is whether you make the change using the Assistant or the direct entry method. I have not checked other similar fields (on other forms) to see if there is a problem, but I would caution you to be aware that this is a possible issue and to be alert for it.

This is the text of my response to the Universe Today Video of the interview with Mr. Mann concerning his perspective on Climate Change caused by Man.

I do agree that the world is undergoing climate change and that it is quantifiable; from my limited perspective.  Yet, I still hold some skepticism to what degree man is responsible. We live in a dynamic environment, which is effected by unlimited variables.

That being said, there is vitriol and name calling on both sides.

There are absolutists who insist that the evidence is incontrovertible and there are contradictists (yeah, made up word) who are intent on being contrary; just to be contrary.  Most of the latter's arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. The former's arguments are sincerely based on their perceptions and interpretation of available data. Clearly, when a theory is  99.9...% true, it is as good as a fact. But the data must be nearly complete to rise to that level.

Some people would not be convinced until it is declared a law and we both know that physical laws are hard to prove and even harder to maintain.

I refuse to use the pejoratives "*Deniers" to classify people who are as yet unconvinced by the evidence, or at least unconvinced to my satisfaction. The use of the term *Deniers compares people who remain unconvinced of the current 'Theory of Climate Change' to 'Holocaust Deniers',  which appears to be an ball faced attempt to place them in the same dimension as Nazis and Radical Islam. It is becoming a 'talking point'. I consider myself a critical thinker and speaking from that perspective 'Talking Points' tend to turn off my 'Listening ears'.

I have heard the phrase 'there is no longer room for debate' too many times to take seriously. There is always room for debate in an intellectually free environment. Debate ends with the declaration of a Physical Law or Scientific Totalitarianism.

Some would argue the that there is no difference.

This argument is too important to let politics and personalities dictate its course.

My response is too broad to write 500 characters at a time.

I read a headline today that made me feel all warm and fuzzy about the future of our country, until I got to the meat of the article.

"House Passes Small Business Bill with WIDE Bi-Partisan Support" screamed the Times New Roman Bold Font!

"Well" I thought to myself "Is this an indication of a thawing in the war between the Dems and the Reps?"

Could it be? Might the politically charged cold war in DC finally be coming to an end? Have our representatives decided to bury the hatchet, roll up their sleeves, knuckle under, dig in, get to it (yeah, I know) and start digging us out of the mess which they have created?

The short answer is no. 

The story goes on to spell out that the bill has nothing to do with Small Business and everything to do with capital investment.

eh? What do I mean?  Capital investment? Well isn't that a good thing? Business' do need money!

I can see your eyes glazing over at the mere thought. I will try to keep this concise.

The way that our capitalist system operates is through investment. When a small business person decides to open a new enterprise the first thing on the agenda , after writing a business plan and researching the governmental hurdles that they have to clear, is to find funding. This is done through investment. Well, you might say "All they have to do is get a loan" and I would reply that, in the purest sense, a loan is an investment by the bank or any entity into the entrepreneur's  idea.

Another way that a company can raise capital is to and sell stock in itself. They can sell private shares to investors. They can sell public shares individually, this is known as the grey market, or Over the Counter (OTC).  Or they can "Go Public" and get listed on a stock exchange. About 1/3 of all capitalized companies are traded on open exchanges. For the sake of argument the law changes only apply to these exchange traded funds and the OTC.

There are a number of requirements that the Federal Government imposes on companies that take the latter path. First; they must do business in an open forum and file timely statements, usually quarterly, with the Feds and the exchanges. These statements are open to public examination and must contain all information about the general health of the company, as well as any events in the life of the company that can have a material effect on the company. These reports (10Q, 10K and assorted disclosures about buying and selling of stock by the company and its insiders) are sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) who has the ultimate power to fine and/or revoke the stock of companies who don't follow these rules.

Even with this system in place there are plenty of companies, usually small (less that $1 million dollars total market cap (TMC)) who game the system. There are con-men who follow all the right steps, create a company and issue publicly traded stock, mostly traded on something called the pink sheets(OTC) or the NASDAQ.  Their only motivation is to take all the money that they can gin from the process, run the stock price into the ground, reverse split the stock, change the name of the company and repeat. Don't believe me look here?

Yeah, so what does this have to do with this great bipartisan jobs bill!?!

I'll tell you. This bill makes it easier for those cretins.

Emerging growth stock
The common stock of a relatively young firm that is operating in an industry that has very good growth prospects. Although this kind of stock offers unusually large returns, it is very risky because the expected growth may not occur or the firm may be swamped by the competition.
the freedictionary.com

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
(a) SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.—Section 2(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
‘‘(19) The term ‘emerging growth company’
means an issuer that had total annual gross revenues of less than $1,000,000,000 during its most recently completed fiscal year. An issuer that is an emerging growth company as of the first day of that fiscal year shall continue to be deemed an emerging growth company until the earliest of—
text of HR3606

Enron was an emerging growth company. So were all of the companies who crashed during the dot com bubble.

And this exemption is not just limited to the small number of shady lowlifes who currently are exploiting the loop holes in the existing law. No, this bill opens the playing field to companies valued up to $1 Billion Dollars TMC. The good news is that the changes are limited to new companies who have only recently filed for public offerings.

$1 Billion TMC and less are considered to be Mid-Cap stocks. Most of these are companies which your average managed fund have no problem investing. And now thanks to a Congress which has no remorse about letting its members engage in trading on insider information, these companies aren't required to do business in the clear light of day. 

So in these days where we all are treading water trying to preserve our limited resources. Our friends in Washington have passed legislation by overwhelmingly bipartisan numbers to allow the sharks in the business world to feast on what is left of your retirement nest eggs.

Nice.

Dear Tripp,

Your world view would be hard to implement. Our whole culture is based on the concept of personal property and of the right to control that property. It is the basis of western law and a capitalistic society. Buying, selling and the control of merchandise is what it's all about.

What's happened here is that the concept of personal property has been corrupted by massive corporations. And since a large corporation is considered to be a person "under the law" and that "Person" has all the rights and privileges granted them by God and Government; they have the right to use all the resources at their disposal to transform their environment into something that supports their own growth and comfort.

All living things do this, it's only natural.

The problem with giving corporation these rights is that a corporation is essentially a communal life form. Not an individual. That gives the corporate entity a collection of advantages over individuals. Primarily being the ability to leverage all of its assets to an end, where an individual cannot compete.

In the case of the intellectual content industry; they have been able to, from very early on in our culture, write the rules that govern patent, copyright and corporate law. They have been able to lever their assets and move the government to their will and the create draconian control over IP that will last generations. In essence they are creating an inheritance for themselves, because a corporation can live forever (unless they go bankrupt and even then there are ways to preserve their property).

The original US copyright law was written as a part of the Constitution and granted the Congress the right to enact copyright law .

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

This is known as the copyright clause and is the basis for all copyright law from the beginning of our republic. At that time copyright was only a whopping 14 years. Since then term of copyright has been changed many times to satisfy cultural and technological changes, more recently the 1998 Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse Act which extended copyright on existing and future IP  to 75 and 120 years.

I won't bore you with a tic-toc of how we got from this single line in the Constitution to a perpetual copyright with heavy handed, monololistic civil and criminal penalties, but the fact is that we are here and there must be changes in the way that things are done.

But your point that content shouldn't be property goes against the Constitution and..... our.... basic.... culture.

So what do we do?

First: I think we should roll back the time that a work of art or science can be held privately, just because your grandfather doodled a mouse on a napkin and the neighorhood kids liked it so much that they were willing to pay just to see it, does not mean your doodle should support your family, or their families, or their investors in perpetuity.

Second: Return copyright enforcement to the civil courts, sunset most criminal penalties for copyright infringement except for all but the worst offenders. And in those cases throw the book at them.

Third: Limit the civil rights of Corporations. Corporations should not have access to the rights granted by Constitutional Bill of Rights and should be nothing more than an entity that is used to limit business' liabilities or for tax purposes.

I know that my answers to these problems have as much chance as do yours, but if they were used it would make for a more civil (pun intended) discourse and a freer society.

Thanks for reading and be well

Jimmer

Ms. Adams,

I have written to you and called your office in the past to express my feelings regarding the passage of the misguided bill known as SOPA and it's cousin PIPA.

To be clear, I do acknowledge that there must be measures taken to stifle the blatant and unrepentant piracy of intellectual property. But having encountered the implementation of such measures in the past I must point out, for all of the hand wringing that the Intellectual Property (IP) owners have done in the past, all they have really succeeded in doing was limiting access to legal forms of entertainment for law abiding individuals and delaying the progress of technology.

I am and have been an electronic service technician specializing in television repair since 1978 and have watched as the studios made war against the electronic manufacturers during the advent of VHS and Beta home recording (Sony Corp v. Universal Studios Group) as well as the design and implementation of  high definition TV and the internet. Every step along the way the studios have cried that with each of these technological advances they might lose money and product to supposed pirates. Each and every time having lost in the courts and in the court of public opinion they have come to congress to protect their failed business model with new legislation limiting the implementation  and uses of these technologies.

But for all of this legal wrangling and crawfishing, the American people would have had high definition television 10 years earlier and DVDs or BlueRay technology much sooner.

As an example; there was the failed mandate that required that all high definition TVs contain a tamper-proof interlock preventing anyone from removing the back from their television, purportedly to prevent hooking physically to the signals in able to make an HD duplicate. To my knowledge very few of these TVs were actually produced and the only  thing that this prevented was the televisions owner from enjoying the use of their property when the circuit that controlled this feature eventually failed.

There was also the badly designed and useless broadcast flag provision which caused a whole generation of HD Televisions and computer equipment to never work as they were intended. The courts eventually ruled (American Library Association v FCC) that Broadcast flagging was unlawful and the FCC repealed this decision earlier this year.

Even the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is regularly used as a SLAP to stifle dissent or just maliciously by anyone who can fill out a form . Most recently there is a case of MegaUpload v. Univeral Entertainment group where MegaUpload asserts that Universal has filed fraudulent DMCA take down notices on property that they do not own. Universal has gone as far as filing DMCA takedown claims against valid news reporting of these events to squelch discussion. This is all very troubling.

The most appalling aspect of the whole thing is the lack of ANY coverage of this legislation by ANY of the major corporate news services.

And we want to pass a law giving entertainment lawyers the ability to wage war on the public internet?

Please Ms. Adams, ask more questions and do more research before unleashing a potentially devastating law on the ability of the American people to get the whole true story.

Any legislation must contain due process protections and severe civil and criminal penalties for fraudulent misuse of these laws as well as strict guidelines for their use.

Yours Truly,

Jimmersd

Representative Adams,

I am writing to express my firm opposition to HR II otherwise known as SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act). I have watched with a great deal of interest, as companies who comprise the majority of the intellectual property holders in this country attempt to protect their Seventeenth Century business model through legislation and intimidation, rather than adapting and evolving. SOPA is no different.

If passed, SOPA would erect restrictions on well established freedoms and create unreasonable criminal standards, well beyond those that any free society should have to endure. This bill actually allows IP holders to act as a non-governmental and unregulated police force whose sole purpose would be to shutdown and prosecute alleged offenders without oversight or recourse.

In addition; I have learned that Congress has decided to hold hearings for this monumental change without the benefit of alternative views. This is unconscionable and would, if SOPA should pass, be held as yet another example of Congress' legislating in a vacuum without regard to freedom or to the views and opinions of its constituents.

Ms. Adams, please allow the full story to be presented and I urge you to oppose the passage of HR II, SOPA.

Yours Truly,


Jimmersd

Using search engines like Google or Yahoo is becoming no more useful than going to an old style Library, standing in front of enormous stacks of books and hoping to find a simple way to divine the answer to life's questions.

In other words, it has become frustrating and bordering on useless.  SEO engineers in an effort to show that their jobs are worthwhile, essentially by demonstrating that their algorithms are able to pump out the maximum possible answers to any given question, regardless of their relevance, have chosen to misapply their skills. They have completely missed the real purpose for their existence; to supply an answer to a question. To be a cyber-oracle, a crystal ball that holds the answer.

And all we have to do is ask the question... properly.

Now dear reader you are probably thinking to yourself that I am somehow misusing this powerful tool. I must be entering the wrong questions, or expecting too much in return from this wondrous free service.

Most of us have seen the recent ad which Microsoft has run for 'Bing'. You know, the one were someone asks an easy question and are subjected to the drone of non-sequesters in response...  "A little bit of Monica in my life....food fight!"

I have been using search engines for many years and have noticed, that whoever is in charge has decided to ignore that actual question that I have asked and answer the question that they think that I have asked. 

"NO!" You say "This can't be true!  Piffle!"

But alas the answer is there, you only have to look. I first noticed this trend on Ebay several years ago. I had devised a complicated method of searching only for the things that I was interested in on the site. When the thing that I wanted wasn't there, eBay would return a null...no answer... Satisfied I would go on about my business.

One day I booted up the 'Bitbox' typed in my search and was greeted with "Your search  for .......  did not match any documents. Did you mean?.... " and eBay had actually changed my search parameters and instead, returned answers that had nothing to do with which I was actually looking for. Rather, the satisfying 'null' response that told me that, either I had asked the question improperly or that the thing that I wanted wasn't there, was gone. Instead, I was presented with someone elses idea of what I might be looking... and they slyly changed my question. WTF!@!

I didn't know how to react. So I just got angry and quit using eBay for a time.

Most people probably don't use these sites and search engines as precisely as I do, when I am looking for something it is usually quite specific. A part number for a rare electronic device or a project that requires that I get the thing that I am looking for. Not a "Needlepoint Kit depicting Bill the Cat and Opus".

I can't lay the blame solely at the feet of eBay and Google et al. There is a cottage industry of folks out there who are using "Search Engine Optimization" techniques to guarantee that your widget will get front page placement. As a result; my search for a 2356722323 LG Stator Interrupter Module (totallymadeupanduselessnomenclaturehere) will return a hit for that a fore mentioned needlepoint kit.

**sigh**

A lot has been said recently about the evils of Corporations. How that they are faceless entities which oppress the individual and steal from the common good. But most people don't know that a corporation can be formed by anyone with the knowledge and wherewithal to fill out a couple forms with their State, the Federal Government and to keep up with the paperwork. I would wager that if your were to throw a rock from your front door you would probably hit the house of one of your neighbors who owns an incorporated business.

Chris Jansing obviously doesn't understand this and extendeds her ignorance in this interview with Lousiana congressman John Fleming,  where she refused to acknowledge the basics of how a small business is organized. At first she accused the congressman of having income equal to the 6 million dollar gross cash flow of his companies. Then she argued that tricks were being played with the system to allow people like the congressman to defraud the taxpayers (in her opinion).

Once presented with reality, she retreated to a standard progressive position that decries anyone who earns more than anyone else. "Well, Congressman I'm sure that people who make Fifty thousand dollars a year don't have a whole lot of sympathy for your Four Hundred Thousand dollars". Real nice. Nowhere does she acknowledge that a business needs investment capital to grow.

Her only problem seems to be some individuals earning more than others.

I wonder what Ms. Jansing's paycheck looks like? I'm sure that it's in the Six figure range and possibility Seven.