jrm

When you asked the question, I bet you never realized there were so many options. It can be pretty confusing to keep up with everything. I'm no expert - actually just wrapping my head around all of this. My guess is that in 5-10 years, the entire TV watching landscape will be completely different. People have mentioned devices like Roku, Sling and Apple TV. Others have mentioned "Smart" TVs. These are all essential the same thing, although features may vary. Basically, these devices run "apps" just like a smartphone. There are apps for Netflix, Vudu, Amazon and many others. The various devices have different interfaces, and some have "apps" that others do not. Before you purchase a device, make sure it can stream the content you are interested in. There is also Google Chromecast. This is a cheap device you plug into your TV (compatible TV needed). Amazon has a similar device. This may be an option. If you have a Playstation (3 or 4) or Xbox, they can do much of what an Apple TV or Roku does. Many current standalone Blu-Ray players also offer all the apps of a "smart" TV or separate box. Some people already have one or more of these devices and don't realize they already have the functionality of a breakout box. One other thing to consider is internet speed. I used to have Cablevision. When their service slowed, I went with Verizon FIOS. Over the years, their service has slowed. Both offer "upgraded" tiers of internet speed for additional cost. If you have that big screen, you will want a HD quality picture on it. Internet speed MAY be a factor. FWIW, I have the "basic" speed for PISO and have used Amazon Prime a few times without any issue. In the future, however, that may change. As more people "cut the cord" the cable providers will look to protect their revenue stream. From their viewpoint, they used to make money selling you HBO every month and now they are streaming it to you for free via the same wire. It is only a matter of time before they figure out a way to charge you for that data stream and maintain their income stream.

I just did. Nothing listed for a New York company. Some agencies also suggest that vacant land liability may be covered under an existing homeowner's policy. None of the information was specific to NYS. I have nothing against liability insurance - I'm loaded up with it. But I still believe that vacant land insurance in New York state is superfluous, given our liability laws. While I am sure an agent can find a vacant land policy to sell you in NY, that doesn't necessarily mean it provides any real benefit. DEC and NYS law seem to indicate it is unnecessary. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you base your claim on. As a landowner, I would really like to know if such a policy has any value in NYS. I cannot find any factual information to support the purchase. Also, there is nothing to suggest posting (or not) has any effect on liability. Posting (in NYS) only relates to trespass. I could not find anything to contradict this either.

Not to be contradictory, but everything I have read (including information on the DEC website) contradicts that. It says the NYS law protects the property owner, even if you allow people to hunt the land. They only time you would need insurance (and forego the mentioned protection) is if you charge money (commercial). From the DEC site: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8371.html If they aren't a "non-paying recreationalist" they are trespassers with criminal intent. The only other area that would pose a problem is if you intentional created a hazard (i.e. put in a thin cable to prevent ATVs from using your trails). Can you post a link to a NYS or legal site backing up the liability claim? I would be interested in knowing more. I'm not sure how posting can affect liability either way. Posting only increases your recourse with unwanted visitors (they can be fined).

I've wondered about that myself. Especially since I am not local to the land I post. I don't like the idea of having my address on the signs. Many people in my area post their land, and I have never seen an address. Most have no information at all, some have a company name (also without address). On the other side, there are two things to consider: 1. rules state a name and address on the posted sign is required. Does not having that information limit the legal effectiveness of the signs? No sense in putting up signs if they have no more legal clout than no sign at all. 2. At least in my area, anyone can go online and see the name and address of the property owner. The county lists it on their tax map. Real easy to find. Probably easier to look it up online than to find a pen and paper to copy off the posted sign. Interesting thing about #2... some property posted in my area has a company name (no address) on the sign which doesn't match the name of the company which owns the land. I also wonder if this impedes the legal effectiveness of the sign.

To be 100% compliant with the rule, the posted sign should contain a name and address. Phone number is an option. Not sure what the advantage is of putting it. Having only an address forces communication in writing, which is always the preferred method.

That link doesn't seem to go to the right place (transposed number). Try this: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7197.html It states: That's interesting about Sullivan County. From the article, is it clear that feeding is legal in Sullivan County? The spokesperson did say it "effectively" invalidates the law in Sullivan, but the DEC also says they stand behind the law. That seems to indicate they retain the option to ticket for feeding. Each case is different. The referenced decision would carry weight in Sullivan County, but could also be used as a strong defense in any case throughout state. I am not sure a county court can invalidate a state law just for that county. Another interesting quote from that article: There are plenty of debates on this site comparing baiting/feeding to food plots. Here, the appeals judge is saying there is no difference between feeding and planting fruit trees. (Although the DEC exception list seems to cover that).

+1 - that's it exactly. The only other restriction is if you "know" or have good reason to believe that person is incapable of owning/purchasing a gun. For example: "Hey, I was just denied a NICS check at the local shop. Can I borrow your rifle instead?" or "I need a gun to rob the local 7-11. Can I borrow yours." or "Gee, just got out of prison for an aggravated assault conviction. Mind if I use your rifle for the weekend?" A "yes" in these circumstances could get you into trouble.

Everytime I change trucks I have this debate with myself. For what I spend on my 250/350 I could get a loaded up 150 and have money left over. If you are occasionaly towing a small ATV or just some supplies now and then, a 150 will certainly do the job. Most configurations of 250/350 (not dually) are rated at/near the same towing capacity as the 150. They all come in around 10-12k lbs. IMO, if you are often towing toward the upper half of that capacity (6,000+) you are better served by the "super duty" version. Even at similar rated capacities, the 250/350 is built for heavier work. At the higher end of the range, the 150 will work, but is much likely to fail sooner. It all comes down to what you are towing, how much you tow it and how long you plan to keep the vehicle.

Sorry if I wasn't clear... In Suffolk County it is not possible to have the pistol listed on more than one license. The license it is listed on is considered the "owner" of the pistol. To get that pistol moved to different license, it must be removed from the current license. If you don't follow the procedure, you are in violation of the county rules and could potentially have your license suspended or revoked.

Yes they do. Aside from intra-state processes, Congress must approve the new state. That is one of the big reasons this will never happen. Splitting the state into two means another two U.S senators are created. Common thinking is that congress will never allow another two senators from the Northeast because we already have so many. There is an alternate plan floating around which would keep NY as one state, but break us up into two districts. Each district would have its own government, with Albany effectively reduced to a small administrative body. Proponents of this plan claim it is more attainable than a 51st state while providing all the advantages of splitting into two. (I'm skeptical on that claim). Info on the regional proposal can be found here: http://www.newamsterdamny.org

I can't speak for the poster you are responding to. I'm in Suffolk County where a pistol can only be "owned" by ONE person and can only be listed on one license. In the scenario you describe, I can see one of two things happening: 1. The "sale" would not be considered valid, because the process to transfer from one license to another was never completed. 2. The "sale" would be considered valid and the license holder(s) held in violation the rules. Worst case scenario (albeit, unlikely) it that license(s) are suspended/revoked and/or "illegal" pistols confiscated. If the wife (person guns sold to) was out with the guns, there would be trouble - the pistols are not listed on her license. Both my wife and I have a pistol license. Originally, her pistols were listed on my license. Not a big deal since she is always with me when using the pistols. Eventually, we went down to police HQ and had them removed from my license and placed on hers. No bill of sale needed. We were both present and simply had to pay a fee per gun to have them removed from my license and another fee per gun to place on hers. A silly money grab, but otherwise simple.

Driving is no different. You must carry your license "on your person" while engaged in the activity. Your numbered "tag" (license plate) must be visibly displayed on the back (and front). Your car acts as "outerwear" in this case so the tag is always visible.

I could have almost wrote the same thing. Dodge - no. Never owned one, but several friends have and there were always major problems. It's a "ford vs chevy" debate for a reason. Toyota - sure they might make a nice truck but, c'mon. Toyota? I'd go Dodge before I went foreign. I am on my fourth Ford pickup. First was a 150. Next was a 350. Next two were 250s. Loved 'em all. Never a major problem. They have reliable towed myself and my horses many, many miles. Odd that I have had an opposite pricing experience with Ford vs. Chevy. Ford - for the configuration I need - has always come out a little less expensive. Also much easier to get the "tow package" whereas Chevy always broke it out into several different items (TBC, transmission cooler, etc.). On the bed height... Ford has s retractable step built into the tailgate. A close friend has a Chevy pickup and that was the one feature he actually admitted Ford has over Chevy. I almost went Chevy on my last truck. Ford, however, had considerably more legroom in the back seat of the "crew" cab. That was the deciding factor. Ford also has the "My Touch" touchscreen panel on new models (finally in the super duty series). That's a pretty cool feature. Ford or Chevy you can't go wrong. I would suggest test drive each and price them out with the features you like/want. It really comes down to personal preference.

I have used salt and mineral licks for my horses. Never saw them for sale at a place like Gander - but I probably wouldn't trust something from there for my horses. Tractor Supply has some good ones from time to time. Mine only hang in the stall. I do find it odd when something is obviously being sold as deer bait (salt or feed) in the hunting section.

Yes, I am selectively quoting, but don't think it places anything out of context. This is a given and I don't think anyone disputes it. However, it is tangential to the question/topic. Whether or not you are tracked, get fired or the discount was good - the question was "is the act ethical?" You mentioned something similar in a previous post. In the OPs example, the company is suffering. They are being denied a sale at their usual markup. Of course a Cabela's can absorb a loss of sale with a $5 margin. Of course they factor this into their budgets (by increasing prices to account for it). It may be an infinitesimal "hurt" in the scheme of things, but it still exists. So... Do you believe that someone must be harmed for an act to be unethical? Do you believe that the harm/loss must exceed some threshold for the act to be unethical? I agree there is a big difference between selling one item and making a habit (or side-business) of it. However, both acts are still unethical. Of course, making a profit off your friend by use of an employee discount can be considered unethical in its own right. Not arguing - just trying to understand your position.

Interesting to bring taxes into it. Did you pay sales tax on the original purchase? Did you collect sales tax when you sold it? Did you declare the profit on your income tax form? If yes to all, then you are a retailer. Depending on the situation of how you acquired the product and the terms of the sale to you, resale may or may not be ethical. If you didn't collect/remit all sales and income taxes, then there is a separate ethical issue to consider. Strictly speaking, that situation wouldn't be theft. I am guessing the company policy wasn't "you are free to resell those knives, only you will lose your job." I suspect it was more the knives were not for resale and you purchased them with that understanding. When you resold them you broke that agreement. Unethical (albeit a gray area if the company doesn't have a buyback policy for sales kits). The original question revolved around reselling while still working for a retailer. If you were working for the company and bought extra sets then sold them to others at a profit, it would be both against company policy and unethical. If you bought several sets while you were employed with the intent of selling them at a profit after you quit, that would also be unethical. If the company's only stated recourse was termination, they obviously can do nothing about it after you quit. That is separate from the underlying ethical issue.

No argument inferred. It's all good. I think this is an interesting discussion. I only posted the widget example in response to someone else's example. I see your point about a retailer letting it happen, although I can't see anyone letting it happen as a way to deplete inventory. The potential amount of product moved by employees selling to friends in negligible. It would easier (and smarter) to mark it down to the employee price and tell the employees to have their friends come in and buy it. Any large retailer with an employee discount program certainly counts non-legitimate employee discounts into their business model. Except they don't list is as a sales tool. They list it as a lost sale - along with shoplifting and any other activity which reduces profit. As was noted in another post, they monitor it and if it gets out of hand, they change the policy. Acknowledging the difficulty of enforcement (or lack of enforcement) does not make the practice ethical. You note the hassle of checking with management to put the product on sale. Do you think these same managers call the VP of sales to ask if employees can purchase items to re-sell at a profit? I doubt any store manager is dumb enough to do that. There are many companies which have a liberal policy on employee discounts. I have benefited from such policies through relatives (although it was manufacturers, not retailers. Big difference). It was all above board and allowed by the company (full warranty, etc.). Other companies have a stricter policy on such activites. The act of re-selling at a profit is a different beast. That puts you in competition with the retailer. You can justify it by claiming "one sale won't hurt the big company," but that doesn't make it ethical. I work with many companies and my clients work with many major retailers... I'm pretty sure that no retailer would be okay with employees buying at their discount and re-selling at a profit. I am not judging anyone. As long as you aren't doing it to me it is not my concern. I don't feel that doing something like this occasionally make anyone a "bad" person. Still, no matter how you look to justify it, it is not ethical - regardless of scale. Someone mentioned it is a lousy thing to do to your employer (and I agree). I also think it is a really lousy thing to do to your friend! Here's a scenario for you... You buy items at Home Depot at an employee discount. Sell it to your friend at a markup which is still below retail. Your friend now returns the items to Home Depot for a refund. Without the receipt, he can still get a gift card. You paid $5, friend paid you $6 and ended up with an $8 store credit. Now he can sell that gift card for $7 on eBay. Everyone wins, right? (Just making up numbers as an example and I have no idea if HD offers an employee discount). Sure, HD can absorb the $3 "loss" - it's already been budgeted for. That doesn't make it ethical. At the same time, if there wasn't "inventory shrinkage" by items moving out the back door, we would all be paying a little less for everything moving out the front door and the employee discount would be more generous. Someone has to pay for it.

Let's say a store buys widgets wholesale at $5 each. They retail for $9 each ($4 profit to the store). They offer employees a discount at a cost of $6 each ($1 profit to the store). The employee buys one or more widgets at $6 each and sells them to friends at $7 each ($1 profit for employee). This is a product which is a slow-mover and where the retailer would like to reduce inventory. Are you suggesting that a retailer would consider is a better idea to hope employees will use their discount to turn a profit with friends? Or is it more likely a retailer will simply run a sale (or "new blowout price!") on the product with a retail of $7 each? I suggest that the sale price of $7 (which gets the retailer $2/each profit) makes more sense and would move considerable more product. If they were really desperate, they could encourage employees to tell their friends and even offer a commission if they need to move the product that bad. Not only does it sell more units, but it gets the retailer a higher profit margin, generates more foot traffic in-store and raises the potential for additional sales on other items when the shopper comes in. That's retailing 101. It's hard to imagine a retailer reducing stock by hoping items fly out the back door. Selling to a friend (with or without markup) steals a sale from the retailer (taking money out of his pocket) and denies him a customer in the store. Sure, some companies may allow this practice, either formally or informally. The best way to find out is to ask the owner or manager. Tell them you intend to buy one or more items at your discount and then resell to friends at a personal profit. Just about any situation I can imagine where the answer is "great idea! go for it!" involves a pretty dumb retailer. Of course, if you do it after you receive the "absolutely not" answer, it is obviously unethical at that point.

Do you mean company size determines if you can get away with it or company size determines if it is an ethical practice?

I see what you are saying, but don't necessarily agree. Actually, I think your statement is contradictory - if it isn't condoned, how is it encouraged? Yes, get rich or die trying is persistent in the culture. However, ethical standards are also pretty clear. Most people who steal or cheat an employer know full well what they are doing, they simply find ways to justify it. While in no way an attack or insult on you, I suspect you knew the practice was unethical when you asked the original question. Asking was simply a way to find justification. No one is perfect - its human nature to look for ways to justify our mistakes, and we all make mistakes.

Entrepreneurial zest would be contacting a distributor, getting a business license, setting up a storefront (real or virtual) and selling like a real business. I'm not sure how our culture encourages such behavior. Again, I feel this practice is no more than theft. If you failed to lock you car, are you actively encouraging theft? Does that then condone the theft? What if the employer didn't have cameras in the stock room and trusted you with the keys to the store... does that "encourage" helping yourself to some "excess" inventory and make it acceptable? It is any more ethical to "take a few home" if it is for personal use vs. resale? An employer giving a benefit to an employee and trusting that employee to not use that benefit to steal from the employer is "trust" not encouragement. Scale makes no difference. It's like the old joke: Man: would you sleep with me for $1 million? Woman: sure Man: would you sleep with me for $1? Woman: No! What do you think I am? Man: We've already determined that - now, we are simply negotiating price.

IMO, no legal bearing. However, you original question was on ethics, not legality. Keep in mind that in NYS an employer can fire you at any time for "no reason." If I caught an employee doing this, I would consider it the same as theft and fire them immediately. If my employee needed a written policy to specifically spell out the unethical nature of this practice, I would not want them working for me.

No. You are effectively competing with your employer, with him funding the effort. Most employers restrict the discount policy to "for own use," with that sometimes including family. Even where the policy is broader, acting as a reseller is not within the spirit of the policy.

That was a purely political decision. The way I heard it, the local state rep would only support the change to allow x-bows in NY if LI was excluded. There is much opposition to hunting on LI. Lot's of "don't kill Bambi" types, and many live near hunting areas. They think spending thousands on "specialized sniper teams" is a better solution to population control than allowing hunting... while also feeding the deer in their yards. I heard that DEC was considering Connetquot for deer hunting... the locals are up set to fight it tooth and nail. (It doesn't help that the DEC was having closed and invitation only meetings on the topic, trying to exclude people from the decision making process). So many people on LI, so many different opinions and so little quality information distributed.

I hear you, but look at it this way... After your encounter, the guy sped off in his Jag. His driving didn't change one bit. He and his wife laughed about the "a-hole" who said something at the gas station. He's laughing at your expense - you provided some great entertainment for his day. Meanwhile, YOU are the one who is "riled up" (i.e. stressed) over the incident. He probably forgot about it and is already laughing at the next guy who flipped him off. You are still bent enough about it to post the incident online. So who really "won" the encounter? Despite his unsafe driving, a life insurance actuary would probably give him a longer life expectancy than you. Life's too short. The more you learn to ignore idiots (difficult, considering the sheer number of idiots around) the happier you will be. Trust me, I've been there (and still visit on some days).