|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 03:15 PM EST |
I've always thought the IRS could implement a few measures to cut down fraud
drastically:
- For direct-deposit refunds, compare the bank account to
the one used for last year's return and check the name of the account-holder at
the bank against the name on the return. There's no privacy problem here because
the bank doesn't need to disclose the name of the account holder, only indicate
whether the name they have matches the IRS' or not. If there's a discrepancy,
attempt direct contact with the taxpayer to confirm the
return.
- Cross-check W2s and 1099s filed for the taxpayer against the W2
and 1099 information claimed on their return. If there's discrepancies in the
contact information, contact the taxpayer using the information from the filed
W2 and 1099 forms, not the ones the taxpayer attached.
- If you get too
many returns from apparently unrelated people going to the same bank account,
red-flag the lot and refuse to process them until you've contacted the
taxpayers. This'll put a crimp in those fast-refund-loan deals, but I don't
recall tax law guaranteeing the ability to route a refund to anyone but the
taxpayer.
- When a return has no continuity of contact information (ie.
moved without leaving a forwarding order with the Post Office) or W2/1099
sources with last year, flag it as suspicious. Most people don't change jobs
cleanly on the last day of the year and most people don't move without
forwarding their mail, so a complete break like that's an indicator something
odd is going on.
It seems to me many of these problems, much like
credit-card fraud and SSN "theft", are based on using a system designed with no
regard for security and then refusing to make any changes to it to improve
security despite all evidence. Eg., for credit-card fraud, why are we letting a
merchant initiate a charge against an account merely by knowing a few numbers
that are handed out to every minimum-wage clerk at every store the card-holder
shops at? Why are we assuming that merely knowing information about a person
that can be looked up in any telephone book somehow proves you are that person?
Or information like my birthday, which is only known to, oh, I don't know, but
at least every single person in my high-school class? And yet,
rather than just admit that those sorts of things are inherently insecure and
redesigning things to avoid relying on them, our institutions insist we
must keep using those methods and layer Band-Aids on top of them as
cracks appear. That's just not sane.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 04:47 PM EST |
Do any of these Java problems occur in Android?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 06:37 PM EST |
Quote from the
article:
Microsoft botched its tablet strategy with Windows
8.
From my own humble perception and opinion that comes as no
surprise.
Although their strategy worked previously in the netbook
market, sooner or later it had to fail. The strategy was not to actually
produce such a usuable product. Like with the netbook, it was to strangle the
product in order to continue the desktop sales.
I echo P.J.'s sentiment:
it's nice to see MS' anti-competitive strategies are finally starting to
seriously fail.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- "It still hasn't found a way to crack the tablet market." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 06:43 PM EST
- Windows 8 poor sales, "lackluster" design can't stop falling PC sales -- days of PC dominance... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 07:18 PM EST
- Windows 8 poor sales, "lackluster" design can't stop falling PC sales -- days of PC dominance... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM EST
- PC Market long saturated.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 12:24 AM EST
- Windows 8 poor sales, "lackluster" design can't stop falling PC sales -- days of PC dominance... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 08:50 AM EST
- Windows 8 poor sales, "lackluster" design can't stop falling PC sales -- days of PC dominance... - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 08:52 AM EST
- Just imagine if they didn't spend over a BILLION USD in advertising... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 08:38 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 06:42 PM EST |
[PJ: This is like hearing the wonderful news that someone
has finally poured water on the Wicked Witch of the West and
she's melting.] re: Preston Gralla, ComputerWorld
Yes it gave me a good laugh :-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 02:28 AM EST |
Monday morning the government filed one last motion in United States
of America v. Aaron Swartz.
“Pursuant to FRCP [Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure] 48(a), the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts,
Carmen M. Ortiz, hereby dismisses the case presently pending against Defendant
Aaron Swartz. In support of this dismissal, the government states that Mr.
Swartz died on January 11, 2013.”
Wired[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 11:45 AM EST |
| I'll actually try to explain this like you're a five year old.
poingiant
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16jq95/eli5_who_was_aaron_swa
rtz_and_what_is_the/c7wq6y7 [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST |
PJ said
So topic one the USPTO asks us to address covers "well
under 10%" of the applications for patents. Of course.
I think
this number is part of the problem the USPTO asks about.
When
means-plus-function language is used the Federal Circuit apply a sensible
standard for requiring that the solution of the problem is claimed as opposed to
the problem itself. But often patent attorneys don't want that. They want to
claim the problem itself so all possible solutions are covered whether or not
the inventor has invented it. Therefore the means-plus-function is avoided. Then
the Federal Circuit cut them the slack they want.
Part of the question the
USPTO asks is whether the standard of means-plus-function claiming should apply
to all patents using functional claiming, not just those which fall under the
10%. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Quote from the article:
importance of design patents
is on the rise after the Apple-Samsung decision
Of course they
would be. What compeany doesn't want their Billion dollar payout?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 05:42 PM EST |
They missed the mark. The activist downloaded articles that
were in the public domain if I'm to believe other reports.
So no copyrights to respect.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
