Me @ Twitter : Live Feed

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Should five per cent appear too small, be thankful I don’t take it all

    Here is a little gem from the Massachusetts tax code…

    Yesterday I had to buy a new battery for my motorcycle. It’s been a while since I’ve had to buy an automotive battery in Massachusetts. Last time I bought a battery was in New Hampshire for my boat which is legally registered in that state. (I want to disclose this before the Massachusetts Department of Revenue sees this post and comes looking for more money.) Before that was likely when I was in my teens and bought one with a friend or for my old Z28.

    I remember paying a “fee” even back then when I didn’t bring in the old battery. I always just assumed this was something the store did and never looked into this “fee” in my youth.  Now, older and more crotchety about the state taking my money, I looked up the “details” around this “fee”.  The summary is below but if you’re looking for the best part scroll down to the bottom.

    Summary: The core fee is a sum of money charged on parts that have a “core” that could be reused. It is charged to the manufacturer who passes it along to the distributor who then charges the consumer.  If the consumer provides a “core” to return, in theory to the distributor who passes it back to the manufacturer, then the fee is returned. The fee was put in place to encourage reuse of parts rather then disposal, like a deposit.

    Here is the tax code gem. The “core” that you purchase in the part you are buying, in my case a battery core, is taxable so you are charged tax on the battery and tax on the core at our newish 6.25% tax rate.  Some places charge $25.00 for the core fee so that would be just over a $1.50, mine wasn’t that much.  Now when you return the old “core” you can get your core fee back but guess what you don’t get back, the tax. It appears the purchase of the core is a taxable transaction but the return of the core is not a “return”, where you would get the tax back, but a “trade”.  So imagine how many of these transactions happen per day in Massachusetts, and it’s not just batteries.  Anything with a reusable part will have a core fee (and it appears some that don’t if you search the web).  That 6.25% really adds up.

    I’m going to see if I can “return” my purchase for a full refund then re-purchase with the core return on the same transaction so I bypass the core fee altogether. I guess I should be happy they don’t tax my core fee when I purchase and return the old core1.  After all they taxed that money twice already, if you add when I earned it, so is taxing it 3 times really that unbelievable?

    1 This was a sarcastic statement, sometimes it hard to express emotion in text. If you agree with it you may not want to keep reading my stuff. Beacon Hill is a bloated bunch of crooks who steal our money via taxes then give it away to people who keep them in power. There are a few good ones down there but on the whole we could easily do without them.

    Share

    A Stroll Through My Internet History on Usenet

    I was reading an article and someone mentioned “stalking themselves on the usenet archives” via Google Groups. I thought, this sounded interesting. While I can’t actually remember posting anything to usenet groups back in the day, doing a quick search reminded me of my very early projects where I work and how far I have come (along with the technology). It’s hard to imagine I once struggled trying to set up a simple web server. If you ever used usenet, you should search for yourself, it was fun. Here are some of the posts (along with dates) that I chuckled at. (Sorry, non-geeks may not get it.)

    Posted October 3, 1997 in microsoft.public.frontpage.client:

    I had FP 97 installed with the web server (1.1 I think, not MS personal)
    on my Win NT 4.0 workstation and I upgraded to FP 98(beta).  After I
    finshed installing FP 98 the explorer and editor would load and work
    fine but whenever I run the server EXE files I get “{location of EXE} is
    not a valid Windows NT application.” Does anyone know what is going on?

    Stats:

    Win NT 4.0 Workstation on a PII 200
    Upgraded from FP 97 -> FP 98 Beta
    Web server will not run?

    Ideas:

    I used this same copy of FP 98 on two win95 machines and it runs fine.
    Is there a Win NT version? (I didn’t think so) Maybe I have the Windows
    95 version?

    Thanks for you help.

     

    Posted December 5, 1997 in microsoft.public.frontpage.client:

    I’m using Frontpage 98 BETA and the Personal Web server that comes with
    it to design a site on a WIN NT 4.0 machine. I want to use a perl
    program I wrote and I have placed it in the cgi-bin directory but every
    time I try to run it I get a 500 Error in the client and a line in the
    log that says:

    [Fri Dec 05 14:04:48 1997] httpd: could not create new process: 193

    The program runs fine from the command prompt and I have a test script
    in the cgi-bin dir that runs okay (it just prints a line to the client).

    What am I doing wrong? Why won’t it work? Please help me.
    I appreciate all suggestions and help.

     

    Posted December 22, 1997  in microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.activeserverpages:

    I am trying to get Perlscript to run on my machine within ASP docs but I
    am having trouble. I am testing my setup with a Perlscript/ASP example
    (from a CD) that just prints basic stuff like Browser type, version, IP
    and so on.

    Problem:        I keep getting a 500 error when I try to run the ASP

    I am running:   Windows NT 4.0
    Frontpage 98
    Microsoft Frontpage Personal Web Server 32/3.0
    I have Perl32 installed and FP is set to allow scripts

    access log says: “GET /cgi-bin/browser.asp HTTP/1.0″ 500 0
    error log says: httpd: could not create new process: 193

    Any Ideas???

    Share