Today i filed my articles of organization for my new business, CircleTech LLC. Lets see if the state of michigan approves my application.
The fees to start and maintain an LLC in michigan are very reasonable. Its a $50 filing fee and $25 a year to maintain the LLC.
As it turns out, the state of michigan wants to give businesses the incentive to start here. Places like california have an annual renewal fee of $800 as opposed to the $25 annual fee paid in michigan.
I decided to form an LLC mostly so i could open a business bank account. I make probably $2000 in profits before taxes a year, but banks want you to have a legitimate business on file in order to open a bank account. It was an absolute nightmare for taxation reasons to have my personal and business finances mixed up so hopefully this should prevent that.
Michigan also makes it pretty easy to file your articles of organization. You just fill in blanks for your business address (your home), pick a registered agent (for a larger business you will pick an attorney but I used myself since i cant see myself being sued for what I do), the write a brief description of what your business does.
I chose to form an LLC in michigan as opposed to illinois because the annual filing fee for illinois is $150. All i can say is states love to wring you out of every last cent.
All they are encouraging one to do is operate as a sole proprietorship and avoid growing their business and hiring employees. Paying more than $100 a year to maintain an LLC is completely stupid. In fact, you really should only have to pay $0 a year unless you plan to update your LLCs documents for that year.
Another reason to add to my list of reasons to never live in california:
- Show previous comments 10 more
there's this belgian comedian that in one of his shows just goes trough every minority he can insult.. and then in some joke the word "jew" drops and the entire room just quietens down.. (as he expected, and he then plays into it.)
he's a comedian that made it his life work to literally insult everything and everyone he can find.. but the only "official complaints" he ever gets of racism.. are from jewish institutions.
nothing against jews here.. but i have something against people who use a very dramatic event in their past to somehow win every argument.
2 + 2 = triangle
I dont care what the democrats do, just dont raise my taxes.
I dont care what the republicans do, just dont take away my personal freedoms.
Both these parties can do anything else, except these two
- Show previous comments 11 more
AAAAANNNND here's another mass shooting.
anyhow, debating onwards with Jtalk on quoted subj:Quote
you're talking human intent.
of course . especially when humans act like animals beyond a reasonable point when attacking an individual, they should know the line where it stops. look, in all fairness in a peaceful world we wont need it, but it isn't, we have peaceful communities alone , mixed in with dangerous people that are vulnerable to abuse & those grew in it oblivious to any dangers so far expecting it to stay that way. we don't have to tear down an electric fence because it's been weeks since a big bad wolf showed up & attacked ,it's staying up for a reason.Quote
I thought we were talking about guns... Are you assuming that if people don't carry guns, they will end up being weak and beaten up by a mob of people? I'm not seeing any other reason you could be talking about mobs beating up weak people and what that has to do with anything. If so that's just a false connection to make. Even assuming a world where crime is so bad that mobs frequently just pick random people and start beating them up, the assumption that lack of a gun would make someone defenseless is a baseless argument. Guns are not the only deterrent or weapon available and I think that's very important to remember.
yes we are talking about guns , it's not assuming guns are the sole problem, they're tools , might seem irrelevant on some places , but very useful depending on situation, why do you think we need em in the first place? they are the reason why talking on it is important, did you think having guns is the problem? people are the problem , the reason this whole 'dangerous' tool exist in a community, especially those crunky ones who think they can get away with minor issues to act out on it.
guns are a huge equalizer in low to high intensity situation , it will de-escalate or escalate any situation, depending on who's holding it, it will control a threat with proper intent of response, especially when people are illogical & would act out on emotion alone. i can imagine using 2 or 3 shots of taze or a 50 ml spray can doing a job of just agitating an offender rather deterring very clearly .Quote
comparing a gun to a seatbelt is disingenuous, as seatbelts are not designed to prevent intentional violence, rather they are there in case of accident. violence and car accidents are two very different things. One is intentional, the other is not.
it's the idea of a situation approaching at random & being prepared for it . not an exact metaphor. an exact metaphor would be an actual situation of altercation that's escalating out of nowhere & you know that other person is taking out some alter ego anger out on you amped by emotional stress they cant handle. just look at minor road rage that escalates into violence of physical attacks over petty stuffs,Quote
Certain weapons should be denied, not just regulated. The constitution said right to bear arms, not right to blow up your neighborhood with a mortar. You can't own a fighter jet and call it bearing arms. There ARE limits to bearing arms. You have the constitutional right to a weapon to defend yourself,
constitutional right is to bear arms . again, defending oneself comes along with it, i know it's a stupid way to excuse owning a bazooka , but arguing that based n constitution would not yield to an idea for denying them that right when situations don't call for it , Limits are set depending on how it works against the idea of it . we're not talking Somalia kinda disturbance in the community, where it adds up to a stupid crazy genocide level situation of crazed weapon usage happening in a community for banning a constitutionally secured right to an individual.Quote
sorry but no. I'm not buying the founding fathers had any inkling of the kind of world that would become in the future or the problems they would face.
you're right, but, lets start with everything else on that constitutional list , we'll look into guns coming in last after we deal with tall those archaic demands & 'rights' being unusable to any future good use by us.Quote
but I do believe that everyone IN SOUND MIND should have access to a gun for purposes of defense or hunting (or collecting, but that's not really part of the conversation here).
I don't however believe that weapons of war that can kill many people at once need to be in the hands of even a law abiding citizen any more than I think that a law abiding citizen has any reason to be allowed to own a bomb or a tank or an F-22.
Obviously , but debatable, i would like to own a huge ass monster truck from time time. given that i own a car too & monster trucks shouldn't be on roads. but in a controlled setting it should be "fun" .Quote
I don't believe lawful regulation would cause good law abiding citizens to be suddenly thrown into a fist fight with a bunch of thugs unable to protect themselves.
depends on community, but we're talking about situational response . and also a right of an individual . so very complicated when controlling it with intent to disarm systematically overtime as some politicians intent to.
we don't have to tear down an electric fence because it's been weeks since a big bad wolf showed up & attacked
I agree, but I would extend that metaphor the other way and say we also don't need to put ai controlled laser sighted sniper rifles on each fence post. You seem to think I want to remove the fence, but that is simply not the case. I just don't want to build it any higher than it realistically needs to be. Some people argue to make guns less regulated, and this is what I'm against. Guns shouldn't be gone, but there should be solid regulation in place that deters most people who shouldn't have them.Quote
guns are a huge equalizer in low to high intensity situation , it will de-escalate or escalate any situation, depending on who's holding it, it will control a threat with proper intent of response, especially when people are illogical & would act out on emotion alone. i can imagine using 2 or 3 shots of taze or a 50 ml spray can doing a job of just agitating an offender rather deterring very clearly .
it's the escalate ones that worry me. Your example of a normal person suddenly being surrounded by a mob intent to beat him to death is
1. not realistic in typical society, yes there are bad areas, but this situation is not the norm for most people
2. forgetting that in a situation like that, you're realistically talking a gang, in which most of that mob of offenders are likely loaded as well, so pulling a pistol would only ensure one of them shoots you. Guns can be equalizers, but only in cases where the offender doesn't have one, and usually the offender is a criminal with a gun, so it's not as realistic as you make it soundQuote
just look at minor road rage that escalates into violence of physical attacks over petty stuffs
no clue what you're talking about... but if people are having bouts of anger management problems, that makes me even less comfortable with people having guns...small things can escalate far too quickly.Quote
constitutional right is to bear arms . again, defending oneself comes along with it, i know it's a stupid way to excuse owning a bazooka , but arguing that based n constitution would not yield to an idea for denying them that right when situations don't call for it , Limits are set depending on how it works against the idea of it
Here you go:
Also the second sentence there simply is not a sentence. lack of sentence structure means I'm not even sure what you're saying. point being though, would you think it should be allowed for people to have F-22's? If the answer is no, then you can agree that while the constitution didn't say we couldn't own military vehicles and use them at our disposal, there is a logical reasoning to regulate that. It is a not necessary weapon for a citizen not in the middle of war. Therefore we don't sell it to consumers. Same for selling live bazookas and explosive shells. the rights in the constitution were design to provide defense and protection to the people, not offensive weapons. also as I pointed out, when this was written, weapons were simply not capable of mass shootings due simply to reload and capacity limitations. The constitution didn't limit what kind of arms, because frankly there wasn't much to limit and people WERE at war in their own towns. Times have changed. The last war fought on US soil was over 70 years ago. The technology of weapons has drastically changed. there are places where it is perfectly legal to have an assault weapon with a 35 round magazine. 35 rounds isn't defense, it's a swat team raid. I think 6-12 rounds is personally more than enough to provide for defense.Quote
not sure why, this has been my position all along. I'm not for removing guns from society, that would be stupid, impractical, and flat out impossible
I am for making sure it's not easy to attain weapons, for making sure that weapons that are attained for either defense or hunting match those intentions in capability and don't far exceed it. I am for logical restriction. Guns designed for all out war don't need to be in the hands of anyone but soldiers fighting wars.Quote
but in a controlled setting it should be "fun".
Exactly, which is why I think gun ranges are such a good thing. Enthusiast who enjoy the proper lawful use of guns can play with tools they otherwise can't own and use in real life. Things are kept safe and fun.Quote
intent to disarm systematically overtime as some politicians intent to
I'm not for disarming though, just making sure the right people get arms and the arms aren't bazookas.
I agree, but I would extend that metaphor the other way and say we also don't need to put ai controlled laser sighted sniper rifles on each fence post. You seem to think I want to remove the fence, but that is simply not the case. I just don't want to build it any higher than it realistically needs to be. Some people argue to make guns less regulated, and this is what I'm against. Guns shouldn't be gone, but there should be solid regulation in place that deters most people who shouldn't have them.
i kinda agree with most parts of it , it's still depended on the case who gets to have a say what is restricted . right now only some select few get top priority protection with heavy arms legally when it comes to their exposure & risks they welcome, doesn't mean an ordinary person living in a hostile environment gets to
have less rights than them.Quote
1. not realistic in typical society, yes there are bad areas, but this situation is not the norm for most people
exactly the point, we expect things to happen in a good way all the time & certain things are not needed. norm isn't fixed either anything can happen. but we expect it to be peaceful as it is intended but reality will soon take hard hits . especially when there's a mix of people that are extremely volatile.Quote
Thanks i've been looking for that !
sorry about that , i had multiple quotes out on your last post to respond , jump cutting the responses here & there & i misplaced the whole wording.Quote
I am for making sure it's not easy to attain weapons, for making sure that weapons that are attained for either defense or hunting match those intentions in capability and don't far exceed it. I am for logical restriction.
it's already very easy to obtain one illegally if you make the right contacts & is willing to pay more than the market price & have the cash , i don't know if delivery happens properly through dark net sales , but getting one from local pansy is pretty easy but costly with heavy risks . but most deliver if necessary. huge regulations would make it hard for new & legal owners. if it comes to it, this area will be competitive. Risks & threat will stay the same.Quote
The last war fought on US soil was over 70 years ago. The technology of weapons has drastically changed. there are places where it is perfectly legal to have an assault weapon with a 35 round magazine. 35 rounds isn't defense,
Wherever there's an issue of chaos & riot , race tension , there's always the threat of domestic terrorism , no one is immune to it, cop kills a guy , what do you think happens? a terrorist attack happens & the anti religious gangs up out of fear start attacking anyone with a religious mark, political killing, political tension, local gang arguments out of nowhere, pure murder out of provocation, how are things going to be , situations change. you know those store owners stories who faced riots, 35 rounds & more can be a defense at situations .
but here is a clear difference in opinion , not anything specific or close to a solution that we both can agree as is depended on situation & expectation. the answer depends on situation.Quote
Exactly, which is why I think gun ranges are such a good thing. Enthusiast who enjoy the proper lawful use of guns can play with tools they otherwise can't own and use in real life. Things are kept safe and fun.
good. also is a useful tool.Quote
I'm not for disarming though, just making sure the right people get arms and the arms aren't bazookas.
sure, but arms are... well. "arms." you know.
Mom wants me to vote blue
"I'll vote blue if they don't raise taxes. They can do anything else, just don't raise my taxes"
Dad wants me to vote red
"i'll vite red when they don't take away my personal freedoms. They can do whatever they want, just don't take away my personal rights".
I don't care what else the government does. Just don't do those two.
Always remember CUDAs four principles of humanity:
Humans are stupid, lazy, greedy and cowards. Remember these four principles when speaking to most individuals who think entirely one way or the other.
The sad thing is most people dont think for themselves. They do not attempt to form their own opinions or conclusions on anything and simply want the answer handed to them, when life is never simple.
This is why i am constantly reading articles and news that contradict my beliefs. Why do you think i follow @DrMacintosh
We seem to have a society of zombies who do what they are told and eat up what they are supposed to believe, when life just isnt that easy. To be youself is to think for yourself.
So it turns out vintage computer parts can also be worth quite a bit of money:
This adds a significant amount of potential to anybody on this forum who know how to restore old PCs to make a profit.
Pentium 4 machines are about as common as grains of sand at recycling centers that take computer parts. It turns out these machines can be worth upwards of $100. Take an old PC and slap an HDD in it. Then install windows 98 and the drivers, and you might just get $100 for it:
If you want to make money, I highly reccomend you check out your local PC recycning center if you can find one. As it turns out pre-built machines running windows 2000 or under can be worth a significant amount online, especially if you can find a pallet of all the same machine.
The local recyclers are already on fleabay.
They are nationwide as well. I just look for stuff I am interested in every now and then. One day their stock can be at 8000 the next day half that. I bet the ones in smaller towns buy here and sell there. Lots on the online classifieds do that, in the vehicle sale market we call them "Curbers"
@Canada EH Yes, but does every single recycler do that?
No, of course not.
Many recyclers I meet are far too busy to spend the hours of time it requires to recycle and refurbish these machines. Think about it. If a recycler get's in a pallet of 8000 dell P4 PCs, barely any of them have the time so pour the hours of time over refurbishing these machines since they have to test, upgrade and install drivers. This takes far too much time for a generalized scrap yard taking many parts. They just don't have time for these things.
I frequently visited three recycling centers during my PC reselling days and this adds so much potential for profit. I find these old machines all the time at these recycling centers and the employees there have no time to deal with them. If we could scoop up these machines and dedicate our time to refurbiching them, then there is a potential for profit.
What you seem to be implying is every single recycler carefully selects computers based on a vast database of available knowledge and spends the many hours required to restore each and every machine that comes through their door. This is simply impossible. Many scrap yard owners I know are focused on how to make profits as fast as possible rather than taking the time over specific machines. This solves an issue for both of us. They get more money for a machine they have no time to restore while I get to make money off of it. It seems like a win win situation for everyone involved.
How I made that 10K over the summer whas I was grabbing RAM and CPUs I found from the scrapyard and selling them in bulk. This is even harder for a scrap yard to replicate.
Where I live in my local area, this honestly sounds like it could absolutely work.
What you seem to be thinking of is related to the auto industry. There are already many pick-a-part junkyards like this, so that market is saturated. But around my local area, I see very few people doing anything like this.
dear microsoft, please make this:
So you know how sony and nintendo have been making small versions of their old counsles?
Microsoft should make a "surface 95" which is really just a small SFF biege box and sell it for $50. The BOM cost for such a machine would be ridiculusly cheap since it windows 95 can run on almost anything. I would absolutely buy it. Load it with a bonch of games like DOOM and quake and I guruantee people would buy it.
Would you rather have:
A girl who is hot but does terrible in bed?
A girl who is slightly overweight but amazing in bed?
Friend: who on earth do tou have 6 credit cards, you much be in so much debt!
Me: i use one for gas, one for groceries, one for dining, one for travel ect
Friend: but dont you have to carry a balance?
Me: no. I pay my cards off every month and accure no interest.
Friend: but doesnt having so many cards hurt your score?
Me: no. Having more cards actually ends yp being benificial to your score as more lenders see that you are more responsible handling debt. Similar to how i trust a suregon who bas done 500 operations rather than 5.
Friend: i dont know, im still scared of going into debt.
I meet many, many people like this. People who have good financial habits, have a budget, and still refuse to use credit cards because they believe credit cards = debt, even though this is simply not true. That would be like thinking a chainsaw = a serial killer weapon. Yes, serial killers have used chainsaws, but you can also use a chainsaw to cut down trees and clear brush.
For me credit cards are like a turbocharger for my finances. Yes i could do without them (just like having no turbocharger), but banks are giving away thousands of dollars in free travel and cash to anyone who can prove thay have good financial habits. I would be stupid to not take advantage of these programs as long as they make more money per hour for me than working at a job and in the vast majority of situations, they do.
I still reccomend to everyone on this forum who currently has good financial habits to get themselves a credit card when they turn 18, of course with the assumption you will use your credit card like a debit card and pay the balance every month. Even if you dont care about rewards, having a good credit score is very valuble for choices you will need to make later.
- Show previous comments 2 more
I think you missed the entire point of my statement. Yes, you could have people learn that. But the vast majority simply won't.
As for your reasoning...sure, there's some truth to it. However there's also these truths:
- When I buy new jeans, I know someone hasn't taken a shit in them. Or blown their load.
- More expensive jeans often have a better fit, and last longer. That's worth the cost increase for some, not for others.
I mean I get where you're coming from. Cheap things are often just as good as more expensive things that people use for status. I like to look good, and for that, I'll pay more money. It's not to impress others, it's something I like for myself. Same with having high end gadgets; they generally just work better. However, in the same regard, I take life experiences and other aspects over making money. I don't care if I have a huge amount of money in the bank. Monetary gain is not the driving force of my life.
Interestingly, for the car, for a lot of people simply having a car that breaks down a faction of the time less can be worth investing in. It doesn't have to match the percentage of the price vs another vehicle. A single breakdown could cost you a job, contract, etc. It can't be valued so simply.
If everyone stopped consuming, you wouldn't be making money off of ancient computer parts
I am not saying dont spend money at all. Just spend money on thing you know you will personally seek the most enjoyment out of rather than trying to impress others.
You enjoy comfortable clothing so you will spend more money on that.
I enjoy getting something from my school food court every day, so I do that.
My mom enjoys going to a small coffee shop in our town every morning because she enjoys it, so she will spend more money on that.
Yet none of us are broke.
This is because we practice our consumption in a way that will positively impact us the most for the least money.
Many people simply buy something because they can, but not because they should.
A consumers mindset will produce as little as possible in order to consume as much as possible.
A producers mindset will produce as much as possible in order to consume an amount proportional to what they produce.
Both these people consume products, but the producer does it far more carefully. The producer spends less while making far greater use and enjoyment out of what money was spent.
I am not saying dont consume, just do it more carefully and do not take advertising as gospel.
they believe credit cards = debt, even though this is simply not true.
I mean to be fair you're wrong here. Credit cards by definition are for borrowing money. just because you don't hold that debt doesn't mean it didn't exist. But I get what you're going for, which is like having good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Borrowing money, ergo debt, isn't the problem. The problem is why you're borrowing money and how/if you intend to pay it back. When used with some intellect, it can be a tool to take control of your finances. When used poorly, it can be a tool to bring down your finances, your credit score, and, if you let it go so far, your whole life.
subscribe to pewdiepie because the enemy of my enemy is my friend
My favorite phrase for taking too many steps to accomplish a simple task (like a time mygrandma printed out a photo and took a picture with her phone and texted it to me rather than just emailing the photo) is:
"you moved the house to tighten the clothesline"