The company Microsoft is working with (Agrisoft) doesn't even operate in WA, or OR yet. And has been sold like two times in the last two years (first to Surna then to Kind)
Additionally their "partnership" is really just Agrisoft getting free Azure hosting. The headline is very click-bait.
Its all about HIGH quality. Pun intended.
Let's not forget that organized crime has been involved in many legitimate industries.
Also, I've heard that cartel-grade MJ is terrible quality- local cultivation is probably pretty different then whatever shit they can grow.
cartels can't compete with local street prices anyway, never mind recreational dispensaries. when you can get an 1/8th ounce of high quality stuff for 25 dollars off-season, and an a full ounce for 100 or less during harvest season, you can barely give the low quality stuff away. it usually gets used for hash or edible baking.
cartels know where they can and can't compete, that low quality brick weed is much better off being shipped to another state where they can sell it for 100 dollars an ounce.
EDIT: thanks to those who replied -- I didn't notice the change in units.
"a full ounce for 100 or less" -> 12.5 for an eight
> Rowe: "The segments I was most interested in doing but found the most resistance around was that of a rendering facility. ... the Mob is still involved in a surprising number of rendering facilities. Why the Mob has such a rich history in garbage-related industries and rendering-related industries is a conversation beyond my pay grade.
I wonder if people set up these logistics/telematics companies so they can make trades on all the data they are collecting before anyone else can (I guess insurance companies would want to do this, but that's less fun of a tangent)?
Also anyone out there using any cheap sensors arrays w/ beamforming techniques and picking up on random RFID tags?
Microsoft may be keeping distant enough not to worry (though perhaps not given their formal partnership with Kind, even if their own offering is only to governments), but Kind is basically betting it's business -- and the personal liberty of its decision makers -- on the willingness of the federal government to extend the informal prosecutorial tolerance of in-state activities related to marijuana that comply with state laws in states which have adopted some form of state legalization to larger interstate enterprises (and on that tolerance continuing at all, which it might well not under a different administration.)
You may be right because of the word trade; however, the Federal government itself has authorized the growing (University of Mississippi) and interstate distribution of legal marijuana since 1976 through CIND.
Not trying to split hairs, because the total patient list has probably always been under a dozen people, but it is still an interesting fact and one I only know of because I randomly represented one of the Federal patients in a corporate capacity. Each patient dosage is individualized, and the Federal government gives my client 360 joints per month.
Why bother with exposing yourself to breathing problems or lung cancer. And with smoking being banned in more and more places, it can't be easy to administer.
As far as respiratory issues, I have never seen any medical record (nor would I discuss them if I did), but my Client is a public figure/activist for medical marijuana and addresses this question regularly. You can find videos online of him discussing this and many other issues if you are interested, but in short he claims no negative respiratory effects and 34 years on this dosage.
You mean interstate trade, of course.
"The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution '[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its authority to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States' includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law." (The answer is 'yes.')
The only think that is allowed Federal government to terrorist people in the name of Marijuana is it is still not a common knowledge that the laws about Marijuana are absurd. Federal government taking on MS might be a good thing for society in general.
One big issue with the "war of drugs" is that it is very easy to benefit by helping the illegal drug dealers that fighting against the regulation. If Uber can wage war on different government for de-regulating taxi business why cant a wannabe hemp company do the same? It is not happening but MS getting into this is a good sign.
I don't think this means what you think it means. A quick glance at wikipedia expands and explains:
The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.
What unenumerated right is being infringed here?
One could suppose the right you're referring to is that of the individual states to create their own laws...except the Constitution covers that one in Article VI, clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Or the right of the states to regulate trade...
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The problem is that a) weed is illegal in the United States under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811) b) the President of the United States has decided not to enforce this law (in violation of Article III clause 5: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). This had led to a murky situation where the laws that apply to a local company are very very different from the laws that a multinational entity like Microsoft has to worry about. I'd be very interested to see what happens in the long run here.
Shipping it across state lines seems like an obvious example.
Edit: This (http://www.mjfreeway.com/) is the defacto standard. I kid you not it went down for 2 weeks ~a year ago after scheduled maintenance went wrong. At the time it had ~50% market share, this left dispensaries around the country doing all their compliance and POS by hand for weeks.
I'm an engineer at [Greenbits], a marijuana POS system running on almost 50% of stores in Washington State. We were runner up finalists at [2015's Tech Crunch Disrupt].
Every quarter, we do visits to stores (some of our customers and those of our competitors). It's amazing to see the state of the industry and how underserved it is. I think part of this is that everyone, retailers and regulators, are still figuring out how to run things. The problem is nuanced because of differences in taxes for recreational and medical, tracking of the product "from seed to sale", and various weird business regulations. We learn a lot of these trips and always come back with a lot of ideas on how to improve our product for our customers and do what our competitors don't.
We are visiting Denver, CO in a couple weeks. :D
Also, this is a plug, but we are starting to ramp up [hiring]. Currently, we only have the Engineering job posting up, but we are looking for a lot of positions and more will be posted up within the next few weeks.
It's not just MJ POS systems, it's POS systems in general. I don't know what it is about them, but they seem to attract horrible software solutions. I see you've gone with iPads, we did the same, a lot better than the industry standard touch screen monitor.
You'd think that people wouldn't like the smaller screens, but we never got any complaints about it. I guess it's about how you utilise the space. I guess there is always the option to use iPad pros if you really want the real estate, although we actually had a couple of customers using iPad minis instead, I think it was for small stalls or something.
Can they treat the product like cold/allergy pills that have to be watched, or does there have to be legal information specific to each "SKU"/item-type???
No "big name" company has wanted to test the waters.
Dude, when nobody wants to be affiliated with your business or be identified as someone who's supporting your business, you have to do what you have to do.
It's not like companies are clamoring to support this industry. Yes, people are falling over themselves to invest in these companies, but with federal issues hanging over these places, the cash only aspects and how society looks at these companies (yes, this is slowly changing too) they are in a tough spot to find good software support.
It'd make many developers I know want to work for Microsoft.
¹ See: XMLHttpRequest, innerHTML, box model, CSS filters, CSS behaviors², VML, etc
² Well, behavior: was probably a terrible idea, but it did allow hacking oldIE to support an awful lot of CSS3.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Seriously, what a dumb question. The answer is "neither": at the time of its release, IE6 was great. It was way better than its only real competition, Netscape 6, which hadn't seen updates in years. Yes, it had bugs, but all software does. If Microsoft had just given it regular updates, it would've been fine. The issue with IE6 was not that it was bad ab initio, it was that Microsoft abandoned development when they felt they had no competition, so it slipped farther and farther behind web standards.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Why is it dumb? Because it packs in an assertion that is implied true, without asking.
An appropriate answer is "Mu". Or 'unask the question'.
They did give it regular updates throughout that period; those updates just never targeted web standards. I'm honestly wondering whether that was through explicit desire (it's a valid business strategy), willful misdirection (not prioritizing "the web"), or management incompetence (inability to deliver desired standards compliance). I've never read / heard anything definitive to explain which of those happened.
The web version of Outlook was one of the, if not the first AJAX application. IIRC, IE added XMLHttpRequest to support web Outlook.
edit: It's funny to watch HN's reactions to anything related to cannabis. You'd think people here watched Reefer Madness and haven't bothered to inform themselves about any actual facts or know any actual consumers of cannabis since then.
The implication that someone smoking pot in the evening would affect their ability to type a very basic mathematical expression the next day is absolutely farcical.
The real problem at late 90s Microsoft was cocaine. Didn't see much of that among the engineers though.
Also, little things. Anybody looked at Babylon.js? Brilliant, brilliantly documented, and the sense that this Open Source "side project" by a few MS employees is really being given enthusiastic support by the parent, the feeling that it's not going to wither. Strength to strength. I love it.
I'd rather have the old Microsoft back. :/
Now I couldn't be happier we stuck by them.
Big categories of software go underdeveloped, leaving an industry in the dark ages. It’s one reason why medical software is so bad – being on the wrong side of legal risk is too dangerous.
I have a name for that, but that’s because I did all my university course work with a guy who could not compute statistics without burning a very big one. He had 12 minutes of brain left after he was done smoking, and what I said stopped making sense to him passed that limit, like clock-work. “Sorry, gotta smoke for that conversation” was his signal he was happy to talk about improving our latest model, but… he needed psychotropic help for that.
Edit: For the record, it would still block you from getting a US Government security clearance, and you can still run drug tests on employees and decline them for failing.
In a way, Microsoft getting involved raises the cost of changing the policy; do they want to prosecute or otherwise upset a major corporation?
Federal enforcement is carried out by the DOJ, which is an agency of the Executive Branch. The DOJ serves at the pleasure of the President, so while Obama chooses not to enforce this law currently, he (or the next President) could change their minds at any moment.
In practice, Microsoft is betting on their lobbyists to ensure a stable regulatory climate.
Edit: as others have pointed out, I was incorrect in lumping in the IRS with the rest of the federal banking system. The IRS does indeed accept money from marijuana businesses. There are other parts of the federal banking system that are not so "accepting", for instance: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/01/05/judge-tosses-denver-mar...
"Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity."
"If you steal property, you must report its fair market value in your income in the year you steal it unless in the same year, you return it to its rightful owner."
So you might actually be able to deduct that, if you could justify returning the property as a business expense.
In some cases proving tax evasion is easier than proving other crimes. This is what got Al Capone -- because the crime was perpetrated through his organization and not by him directly, it would have been difficult to hold him directly responsible for the crimes. However, once his ledger was discovered it was straightforward to prove that he received significant income without making the required income tax payments.
You have to buy them and place them on your drugs so if you get raided, you can prove that you paid taxes on your supply. There are even folks who collect the stamps.
That's not even remotely true, as even 30 years ago the IRS happily took my money, and did so without telling anyone else where the money came from. I mean, maybe it's changed since, but when it comes to "IRS won't take my money", ima gonna have to pull the "citation needed" card.
Is there a checkbox on US tax forms for "illegally earned money"? Or are you expected to put that in a free-text field?
One should also note that (as far as I can tell) the IRS does little more than a cursory glance at most returns to make sure the numbers add up, especially back then. Point being is that it's entirely possible one could have put "income from trafficking under-aged children into white slavery", deducted the cost of acquiring said children, and never gotten flagged because the numbers add up and it doesn't hit the "trying to weasel out of paying what's owed" flag in the computer. Dunno, I'm just relaying an anecdote with a lot of details left out, you sure as hell don't want to take this as tax advice.
Is there a statutory prohibition on the IRS sharing this info with other law enforcement agencies? Where is the line, i.e. would you expect confidentiality if you reported proceeds from your work as a hitman?
In the mid-80s I had income that would not ordinarily go on a W2 or a 1099.
I had reason to take them at their word and file. All I'm saying is that the IRS doesn't care where the money comes from, as long as they get their cut, and I have experience to back this up.
All it takes is one story to the contrary to turn this into urban legend, and the IRS doesn't get as much money anymore. They're a debt collection agency, I had/have little reason to doubt that they just want their money.
Remember, what they ultimately got Al Capone on wasn't racketeering, bootlegging or murder, it was tax evasion.
>> Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.
Cocaine and methamphetamine are both schedule II.
Now I understand the difference is that Schedule II means there are some medical uses but to lump marijuana in with "the most dangerous" but not meth? That just seems ridiculous.
Sidenote (not from this study): Mushrooms are supposedly the least harmful to the human body... Who'da thought?
Schedule I drugs have no known medical use and high abuse potential, which marijuana currently falls under. Whether or not you agree with that classification is an entirely seperate issue.
The scheduling of cannabis is crap, and literally everybody knows it. The DEA has to embarrassingly dodge the question whenever it's brought up.
What does that mean? Surely the IRS still wants their money? It would seem to put the IRS and marijuana businesses in an awkward position...
Banks, now that's a different story.
Companies are smart to hop on the end of another prohibition that will be quite lucrative. It is an immense blue ocean.
Good to hear, nevertheless.
It says a lot about the US that the food they eat does not have this level of monitoring and regulation (to track outbreaks like E. Coli) but marijuana does, despite not killing anyone.
(with apologies to Cheech & Chong)
Green Screen of Somnolence???