On 5 Feb 2007 at 14:24, Jim Leonard wrote: I just had a look and they're not Avery, but Quill--a discount office supplies place. What we've been using have been Quill 901-7-20401, but that's a lot of labels. Basically, any "copier label" seems to do well. Probably any big-box office supplies store will have their own brand. http://www11.quillcorp.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?PageType=1&sku=01272 9&EFFORT_CODE=901&FIND_NUMBER=720401#ProductDetails Eh, now there you've got me for a good solution. There are foil labels (such as return address labels) that should work, but they're not all that removable. OTOH, there are paper labels that are removable, but they don't stick worth a darn to a floppy jacket. Cheers, Chuck

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Fred Cisin wrote: Do you have an URL on this? There's an awful lot of talk about California among others wanting sales tax paid on interstate purchases. -- David Griffith dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, David Griffith wrote: No URL handy, but Google should work. In 1953?, The Baldwin case (SCOTUS) decided that sales tax should not be imposed on interstate commerce. Sales tax could be imposed iff the seller had a "nexus" (presence) in the destination state. Over time, some states got "creative", declaring that "well, things are DIFFERENT now", and defining presence in terms of any storage, advertising within the state, etc. The customer service rep of North Dakota was very helpful but honest. He told me, "we define it somewhat aggressively. We feel that there is a presence if there are at least three phone calls made into the state. Oh, and by the way, this counts as the first one." Quill (mail-order office supplies) didn't agree. It went to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS sided with Quill, that a "nexus" had to be a physical presence. Quill deserves our support! Periodically, the "oh, well, things are DIFFERENT now" states will resume their contempt of SCOTUS. and, of course the fact that it is called "Sales and USE tax" gives the states the opprotunity to say that anything that you buy is subject to USE tax, regardless of where you got it. California once tried to apply that to a database of customs declarations! When sales tax IS applicable, it is theoretically at the rate of the destination location. But, the Bd'o= doesn't care if businesses charge the rate of the source location, since it is more often higher. Thereby eliminationg the market for the XenoSoft Sales tax Genie. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

On 5 Feb 2007 at 19:32, David Griffith wrote: Abuse goes much further than that. Prior to 1991, we used to regularly argue with California that there was no way we could collect sales tax, as Oregon has no sales tax, and therefore no mechanism for collecting it. (BTW, in California, unless things have changed, the agency responsible for riding herd on sales tax is called the "Board of Equalization". Always smacked of "Handicapper General"). I also explained that Oregon would most likely not honor a warrant from California that dealt with sales tax issues. It made little difference to the small minds in the Golden State--and some refused to believe that Oregon has no sales tax. After that, it became a requirement that any entity from any state doing business with a California government entity had to go through a bunch of "drug free workplace" forms, including one that stated that we gave annual drug screenings to all of our employees. We managed to duck that one, but just barely. I remember when California increased the sales tax from a 1% tax to fund education to 6% as a "temporary" measure. There were some who warned that there's no such thing as a temporary tax--and they were right. Heck, we're all still paying for the Spanish-American War via the 3% Federal Excise tax on our phone bills. Aw, there I go again... Cheers, Chuck

Chuck Guzis wrote: But that's exactly what has failed me: generic-brand copier labels. So, if you swear by "Quill 901-7-20401", then that's what I'll get. I'll take 'em -- the whole point of the tab is to protect the data. Any particular brands you've used? -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

On Monday 05 February 2007 17:54, Fred Cisin wrote: Indeed, I was just going to suggest a roll of black vinyl electrical tape. It's best to use a good 3M roll, rather than the cheap $0.50/roll junk you can buy, also. There's a noticeable difference between the cheap stuff and the "expensive" stuff, and the more expensive stuff really is worth the price difference, in adhesion, flexibility, durability, and thickness. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

On Monday 05 February 2007 21:43, Jim Leonard wrote: I usually use 3M Super 33+ Vinyl Electrial Tape. I haven't tried using it for write-protect tabs on a disk, though. The "good" 3M stuff does have a lot better stick than the el-cheap-o tape does, though, so it's worth a shot. Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

Fred Cisin wrote: Tried that; slides around and falls off. It seems the material and adhesive were made for each other (ie. meant to stick to itself, not other things). It *looks* the best, but is not practical long-term (and I've sworn like a sailor when a disk comes out of the drive without the tape!) -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/