The power adapter is a power adapter with a USB socket (which fits one end of the USB cable supplied), but that doesn't help you if you are someplace else without your special iphone charging cable and wish to plug in your iphone to charge, because the iphone itself will not accept a USB connection without an adapter (which is NOT included in the original package).
There's no technical reason they had to use a 'lightning' socket, it's simply a play to grab more cash from users upgrading peripherals, and from peripheral manufacturing license agreements. They could easily have used micro usb instead, or even better gone for wireless charging too. So they have ignored the spirit of EU agreement and pissed off a lot of their users by creating yet another locked down adapter. The sort of thing they could get off with when there were no competing devices, but now that Android is pretty much caught up, this sort of thing undermines confidence in Apple.
Except that there's a pretty good argument that this isn't a "fake" charge. It's benchmarked to the royalty they get from non-subsidiary companies using their logo and IP.
Why would a company charge itself money to use its own logo, except to evade tax?
How many people reading this intentionally pay more tax than they are strictly required to?
A more apposite question would be how many people reading this have set up offshore shell companies solely for the purpose of avoiding tax, or have the resources to do so? Comparing a company like Google to an individual is absurd sophistry on the level of taxation.
The problem here is not whether companies should volunteer to pay more taxes, but the fact that global corporations have found ways to avoid the jurisdiction of any one country (or indeed, of any country at all), and are able to funnel their revenue through complicated structures in various countries which mean they pay virtually no taxes. This is similar to hollywood accounting, borderline fraudulent, and bears no relation to the tax affairs of most individual taxpayers.
That they would avoid all tax was not part of the bargain made with countries who let companies incorporate and set up business in their country, with all the protections and privileges that a limited company implies. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, and you can expect countries to find new ways of taxing companies if they insist on trying to evade corporation tax. For example countries could impose a tax on all transactions, a tax on all revenue (before profit/loss calculations), a tax on advertising, etc. This might not suit companies like Google, and they'd probably find it worse than corporation tax, but when companies like Google boast about avoiding paying any tax at all, that's what they should expect in response.
Tax is the price we pay for civilisation, and companies should not be able to escape paying their due to the country that hosts them.
That's right, it's worth more than one dollar though, around 1.3 USD. So really the fact that they're used elsewhere with no ill effects (the pound coin is another example) means its surprising that the US is so behind on this issue.
Cash, when compared to bitcoins is:1. anonymous 2. non-traceable3. not easily insured against theft/fire/loss 4. savings in cash are not guaranteed by law
I was comparing digital cash (i.e. money held at a bank as figures in their computers), with Bitcoin - digital cash has none of the problems you note above. Are you seriously trying to compare paper cash with Bitcoin, if so why? The real comparison is between digital currency and BTC, as those are the equivalents, and Bitcoin is competing with digital cash, not paper cash. Unfortunately Bitcoin has thrown out the advantages of digital cash in a misguided (IMHO) attempt to emulate paper cash, and ended up with many of the same problems as paper cash, as opposed to cash in bank accounts which is easily traceable, not anonymous, protected by law, etc, etc.
Transactions are only traceable if the *other* person chooses to let them be, and chooses not to lie, that's not an acceptable level of security for me when dealing with any significant sums. Simply refusing to deal with anonymous buyers/sellers would work in some sort of crypto-anarchists paradise, in the real world I don't want to use a currency which even allows anonymous transactions - it'll end up with the same abuse and problems as say email, which relies on trusting the sender.
Re adoption of the currency, I made the separate point that it is not mandated by law as legal tender - this is an important point and is not the same as simply not having wide adoption.
The fact that you can identify several companies who were hit with fraud isn't a condemnation of the currency, but a problem with a nacent industry. The same arguement can be made for storing ANYTHING of worth with a third party.
I agree to some extent on this point - this isn't a damning criticism on its own, it does mean I wouldn't trust any of the BTC exchanges though, and leads me to distrust the entire industry which has grown up around BTC, which is mostly populated by amateurs and kooks. I remember the bitcoinia post on Hacker News, announcing his intention to set up an exchange on a cheap VM, and several people warning him he would be hacked without serious controls - amateurs setting up financial systems has very much the same consequences as non-cryptographers attempting cryptography.
Here's some more entries for your disadvantages column:
The disadvantages of Bitcoin:
* It's anonymous and therefore it is hard to trust
* Transactions are not traceable to real world identities and therefore it is hard to trust, and impossible to trace theft properly
* Transactions and organisations are not regulated as banks are, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is not backed by the assets and credibility of a nation, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is impossible to insure properly against theft and loss, because there are not traceable transactions and anonymous transactions are allowed
* It is subject to massive speculation, hoarding and other manipulation, and therefore the value fluctuates wildly
* It's controlled by a cartel of core developers, and the rules could be changed at any time (in this sense it is a fiat currency!)
* Savings are not guaranteed by law as they are in national currencies
* Acceptance of the currency is not mandated by law, so it can be hard to spend, though it is not hard to convert (but this will lose some value)
* Many of the organisations helping to store/exchange bitcoins are amateurs and have been subject to massive theft and fraud (Mt.Gox, bitfloor, Bitomat, MyBitcoin, Bitcoinia, Bitcoin Savings and Trust) - needless to say, the perpetrators of these thefts have not been caught or charged.
Re your advantages column, national currencies can also be transmitted globally within seconds, and are of course secured against theft and loss by guarantee.
but instead of a central government controlling everything it's done with voluntary contracts at the individual level.
Who enforces those contracts? Individuals can't, or the worth of a contract is simply directly proportional to the physical violence or other form of coercion that individual is willing to wield in order to enforce it. Society (i.e. social contracts between individuals or groups) requires the threat of violence and coercion in order to exist, as otherwise freeloading becomes the optimal strategy. Many individuals will not share power willingly, or allow personal freedom to others, you don't seem to account for those refusniks.
If you or I believe that's a viable political structure is a different conversation.
Actually no, the essence of this question (Is anarchy equal to chaos, or is it something else?) lies exactly at the nexus you have tried to sidestep - is 'political anarchy' viable, and if not, what defines the difference between anarchy and simple chaos? Without answering that question, and thus defining who holds the power, you can't really say what anarchism means, and whether it is worth considering as a political philosophy.
PS I love your term political anarchy, with it's implication that we can achieve political anarchy, as you narrowly define it, without all other kinds of anarchy following in its wake. Your political anarchy seems to depend on entirely rational humans acting in their own long-term self-interest.
You realise that the chart you linked to *removes the top 5% of sales* (where the majority of the money is) in order to distort the statistics? It's meaningless puffery, and I'm afraid the BB platform has changed far too late to attract any developers.
Desktop Linux should learn from Android. What Android got right:
You missed out: heavily promoted by one of the largest companies in the world over a period of years, and including an app/media store where it is possible to make money (from adverts and from sales), and, most importantly of all - bundled for free with stuff which consumers want to buy (cheap smartphones).
I don't think Android's success has much to do with the software, which has been pretty rough at the edges for most of its existence and is only now getting some level of polish and sophistication.
I seriously doubt that Aristotle could have comprehended calculus or designed a Mars rover.
I seriously doubt Democritus or Archimedes would agree with you.
The article is bunk though. First there's no proof that intellect has declined, only speculation. Then there's the silly idea that there are no selective pressures today. There are, but they are working in different areas, and death as an outcome doesn't really matter to evolution unless it is very early, all that matters is reproduction.
As a counterpoint to his specious argument about Ancient Greece being the pinnacle of human evolution, we could look at all the foolish endeavours, demagogy, rotten politics, incessant warfare, slavery, genocide and ignorance which prevailed at the time, and feel that we have collectively come a long way.
I'd say it should be under 50%, and completely agree that government in the US (and most countries) is far too large. But I'd disagree about where to cut with most republicans. I think the military budget should be slashed, the DHS dismantled, the public health system properly reformed to be single payer for drugs and services (and thus vastly cheaper), and the political system reformed to outlaw lobbying and corporate support for politicians above very small amounts (to bring them down to the level of individuals). I'd also close tax loopholes for taxing the rich, so that a the tax burden was distributed more evenly. Those measures would reduce your tax burden immensely. This is a hard problem, but so far *no* US politician has the guts to try to address it - there are too many vested interests.
Re healthcare, it's perfectly fine to have private healthcare *for those who want it*, but the gov. is going to end up paying for lots of people in a civilised country, and you should be aware that it would be cheaper for everyone if that was done via a public system rather than the bizarre and inefficient system involving insurance companies that you have in the US at present - I'd abolish Obamacare, and replace it with true public hospitals - like the police service, this is something better and cheaper done by the state to provide baseline care. Those who can afford it can then pay for more advanced care themselves.
I wouldn't get too hung up on how many people pay tax or not though, frankly that's a smokescreen of hate to avoid letting you think about the hard problems - the truth on taxation is this:
EVERYONE, no matter how poor, pays some tax - sales tax, excise tax, fuel taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, etc The vast majority of tax take is always going to be flat taxation and income tax on the middle classes, because that's where all the easy money is The rich will always find ways to avoid most of income tax (curious that you don't find this a problem?), and thus avoid their share of the burden The poor will never be able to contribute very much, so your best bet is trying to lift them out of poverty, not tax them more
The big issue is probably sandboxing, so you'd need a VM which was sandboxed like Java or Javascript, and then to deal with the constant security headaches as people find vulnerabilities. If it was a trivial problem someone would have done it by now, but please do go ahead:)
That's the problem: you always want to spend other people's money, except, there's nothing to make people create wealth (start businesses, invest in startups and infrastructure, etc) to tax, and eventually, as Thatcher said, you run out of other people's money.
There is such a thing as society, and it paid for your roads, your schools, your prisons, your police force, your fire service, and it subsidises your hospitals, your water mains, your gas supplies, your reliable electricity supplies and the very fabric of civilisation you take for granted to start your business. Society is funded through taxes, and gives back in services and support (i.e. not in money) - it's an exchange of some income for the privileges living in a civilised country give you. Think on that next time you view yourself as a wealth creator and everyone working for the government as parasites.
If you're intending to cash in your 401k and it is currently in stocks, can't you move your 401k into safer instruments gradually before retirement? If so you should be moving it gradually to cash starting right now, before you are subject to massive volatility. With all the money printing going on, related boom and busts in stocks and other assets, and various wars about to start, the safest place to be is (paradoxically) cash, at least in the short term. Over just a few years, the money lost to inflation will not be as significant as the risk due to volatility in stocks, bonds or anything else.
Yep. The submission raises more questions about the submitter than the person who just left for me. People who rate others as incompetent with no redeeming features are often incompetent themselves in my experience. The level of paranoia in the submission is also remarkable, but I guess all this checking and for 'hidden messes and security flaws' might be a good excuse for not doing anything useful for the business. Any problems for the next few months can just be blamed on the recent turkey without introspection as to how they might have ended up with this employee or how they might have created such a mess with no-one esle knowing.
If you have decent processes in place, hidden messes and security flaws would not be possible without extreme malice and intelligence (not possible for an 'idiot' and a 'turkey'), if you don't and cannot change the processes, leave, as you should recognise the workplace is dysfunctional (and that starts right at the top of the department and goes all the way down).
Leaking this story makes sure the press will notice if Apple does delay or reject the app Leaking this story helps to explain to users that Google is not the only one deciding to keep Google Maps off iOS. Leaking this story helps users pressure Apple to provide the Google Maps app Leaking this story puts pressure on Apple and encourages customers to look at Android
It's perfectly reasonable for them to talk up in advance the fact they are developing this app and will submit soon, given the opaque review process, and Apple's blatant abuse of their control over the ecosystem in the past (banning previous google apps like latitude and google voice for example), which has led to other apps from their competitors languishing in 'review' limbo for months, or having important features yanked (like buying books in the kindle app) because Apple wants a cut of every transaction.
The billion dollar business you refer to was based on dealing in stolen information, but somehow you neglected to mention that. He was previously convicted in Germany for insider trading and embezzlement, and in hong kong for illegal share dealing. He then bought his citizenship in New Zealand. Classy.
Kim.com is a huckster who moves from country to country as he exhausts their supply of goodwill o r is convicted of fraud, and you've fallen for his cheap demagogy. Congratulations.
Not attempting to twist things, but I felt that particular article was somewhat sensationalist and simplistic. I don't agree with everything he says, and feel he should be stronger in condemning the Taliban, but do agree with his opposition to drone strikes, and his insistence that a *military* solution is simply not going to work, and is in fact counterproductive. His hesitancy in condemning the Taliban outright is explained by him saying that it would be somewhat cowardly for him to do this (though profitable politically), and then leave the badlands for Islamabad and let his agency workers be killed by the Taliban for his words. That doesn't convince me personally, but it is not supportive of the Taliban in the Swat area, it's hinting that they're murderous thugs.
I suspect personally that the Taliban timed the hit on Malala (a cruel attack on an admirable girl, which khan condemned) in order to try to undermine moderates like him and polarise the debate - the Taliban (if we can talk about them as one group) would much rather deal with a military which is funded by the Americans and condones drone strikes (which work for them when they kill civilians) than deal with civilian politicians who attempt to negotiate with tribal leaders, end violence, and ultimately isolate the remaining Taliban as a criminal element (which is what his proposals seem to amount to). His position on it is quite nuanced and he is no radical Taliban supporter:
Unless we address these very different groups [of terrorists] and understand their motivation, senseless military operations will push all of them together, create yet more collateral damage and increase terrorism in Pakistan. We will be looking at a never-ending war. So what is the solution?
Regardless of what his opinions are on the military situation in Pakistan, I don't think it's appropriate for border guards to harass prominent foreign politicians at the US border, particularly not those who are relatively moderate, *even if they disagree with US foreign policy*.
I think his words were twisted there - he said - "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad ". That does not mean he endorses the Taliban's world view, far from it, just that he understands the motivation for fighting a foreign invader, and is playing to a complex home crowd. In fact he's been threatened with assassination by the Taliban in the past, has been strongly critical of them and went to visit the girl recently shot by them (he wouldn't go near that if he wanted to support them, they explicitly told him he was not welcome, but he went anyway). Just because he's not willing to condemn everyone fighting the Americans in Afghanistan does not make him a war monger. Here is the full quote, minus the editorialising from the guardian (who want page views after all):
“In the guise of the Taliban, there are several criminal gangs who didn’t even spare PTI workers by demanding extortion money.” The PTI chief said that “drone attacks are carried out with the consent of the government, and in reaction, Taliban attack civilians.” Citing an ex-employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency, he said that unless the Pakistani government withdraws its support as a coalition partner on the ‘war on terror’ it will be unable to overcome the insurgency in the country. “A military operation can be a small part of a larger solution but a conflict cannot be resolved through military operations alone,”.
If you discredit the moderate voices like Khan's you're left with the extremists like the Taliban, or Musharraf - really the west should be trying to work with moderates like him, not intimidate him into silence or funding dictators like Musharraf and the ISI who have channelled funds to these terrorists everyone is so keen to profess hatred for. It's no coincidence that Bin Laden was hiding in plain site in Pakistan, and more terrorism targeting US troops will be funded by Pakistan (and thus indirectly the US) until the US look for a political solution rather than performing drone assassinations, indiscriminately showering the Pakistani military and security services with money and hoping it will all just go away.
EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE. This should be:Imran Khan detained by US customs over opposition to drone strikes as in the original submission, or if you prefer Pakistani politician..., but not Pakastani...
Slashdot Mirror
This is what the OP was discussing, and it's not included (best check you're right before calling others morans on the internet):
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MD820/lightning-to-micro-usb-adapter
The power adapter is a power adapter with a USB socket (which fits one end of the USB cable supplied), but that doesn't help you if you are someplace else without your special iphone charging cable and wish to plug in your iphone to charge, because the iphone itself will not accept a USB connection without an adapter (which is NOT included in the original package).
There's no technical reason they had to use a 'lightning' socket, it's simply a play to grab more cash from users upgrading peripherals, and from peripheral manufacturing license agreements. They could easily have used micro usb instead, or even better gone for wireless charging too. So they have ignored the spirit of EU agreement and pissed off a lot of their users by creating yet another locked down adapter. The sort of thing they could get off with when there were no competing devices, but now that Android is pretty much caught up, this sort of thing undermines confidence in Apple.
Fertiliser bombs should be available over the counter just like assault rifles. Bombs don't kill people, people kill people.
Except that there's a pretty good argument that this isn't a "fake" charge. It's benchmarked to the royalty they get from non-subsidiary companies using their logo and IP.
Why would a company charge itself money to use its own logo, except to evade tax?
How many people reading this intentionally pay more tax than they are strictly required to?
A more apposite question would be how many people reading this have set up offshore shell companies solely for the purpose of avoiding tax, or have the resources to do so? Comparing a company like Google to an individual is absurd sophistry on the level of taxation.
The problem here is not whether companies should volunteer to pay more taxes, but the fact that global corporations have found ways to avoid the jurisdiction of any one country (or indeed, of any country at all), and are able to funnel their revenue through complicated structures in various countries which mean they pay virtually no taxes. This is similar to hollywood accounting, borderline fraudulent, and bears no relation to the tax affairs of most individual taxpayers.
That they would avoid all tax was not part of the bargain made with countries who let companies incorporate and set up business in their country, with all the protections and privileges that a limited company implies. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, and you can expect countries to find new ways of taxing companies if they insist on trying to evade corporation tax. For example countries could impose a tax on all transactions, a tax on all revenue (before profit/loss calculations), a tax on advertising, etc. This might not suit companies like Google, and they'd probably find it worse than corporation tax, but when companies like Google boast about avoiding paying any tax at all, that's what they should expect in response.
Tax is the price we pay for civilisation, and companies should not be able to escape paying their due to the country that hosts them.
That's right, it's worth more than one dollar though, around 1.3 USD. So really the fact that they're used elsewhere with no ill effects (the pound coin is another example) means its surprising that the US is so behind on this issue.
You haven't been paying attention. Developers are flocking to the platform.
Nice try. I sincerely hope you don't have a lot of money or time invested in RIM and wish you the best of luck.
Cash, when compared to bitcoins is:1. anonymous 2. non-traceable3. not easily insured against theft/fire/loss 4. savings in cash are not guaranteed by law
I was comparing digital cash (i.e. money held at a bank as figures in their computers), with Bitcoin - digital cash has none of the problems you note above. Are you seriously trying to compare paper cash with Bitcoin, if so why? The real comparison is between digital currency and BTC, as those are the equivalents, and Bitcoin is competing with digital cash, not paper cash. Unfortunately Bitcoin has thrown out the advantages of digital cash in a misguided (IMHO) attempt to emulate paper cash, and ended up with many of the same problems as paper cash, as opposed to cash in bank accounts which is easily traceable, not anonymous, protected by law, etc, etc.
Transactions are only traceable if the *other* person chooses to let them be, and chooses not to lie, that's not an acceptable level of security for me when dealing with any significant sums. Simply refusing to deal with anonymous buyers/sellers would work in some sort of crypto-anarchists paradise, in the real world I don't want to use a currency which even allows anonymous transactions - it'll end up with the same abuse and problems as say email, which relies on trusting the sender.
Re adoption of the currency, I made the separate point that it is not mandated by law as legal tender - this is an important point and is not the same as simply not having wide adoption.
The fact that you can identify several companies who were hit with fraud isn't a condemnation of the currency, but a problem with a nacent industry. The same arguement can be made for storing ANYTHING of worth with a third party.
I agree to some extent on this point - this isn't a damning criticism on its own, it does mean I wouldn't trust any of the BTC exchanges though, and leads me to distrust the entire industry which has grown up around BTC, which is mostly populated by amateurs and kooks. I remember the bitcoinia post on Hacker News, announcing his intention to set up an exchange on a cheap VM, and several people warning him he would be hacked without serious controls - amateurs setting up financial systems has very much the same consequences as non-cryptographers attempting cryptography.
Here's some more entries for your disadvantages column:
The disadvantages of Bitcoin:
* It's anonymous and therefore it is hard to trust
* Transactions are not traceable to real world identities and therefore it is hard to trust, and impossible to trace theft properly
* Transactions and organisations are not regulated as banks are, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is not backed by the assets and credibility of a nation, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is impossible to insure properly against theft and loss, because there are not traceable transactions and anonymous transactions are allowed
* It is subject to massive speculation, hoarding and other manipulation, and therefore the value fluctuates wildly
* It's controlled by a cartel of core developers, and the rules could be changed at any time (in this sense it is a fiat currency!)
* Savings are not guaranteed by law as they are in national currencies
* Acceptance of the currency is not mandated by law, so it can be hard to spend, though it is not hard to convert (but this will lose some value)
* Many of the organisations helping to store/exchange bitcoins are amateurs and have been subject to massive theft and fraud (Mt.Gox, bitfloor, Bitomat, MyBitcoin, Bitcoinia, Bitcoin Savings and Trust) - needless to say, the perpetrators of these thefts have not been caught or charged.
Re your advantages column, national currencies can also be transmitted globally within seconds, and are of course secured against theft and loss by guarantee.
but instead of a central government controlling everything it's done with voluntary contracts at the individual level.
Who enforces those contracts? Individuals can't, or the worth of a contract is simply directly proportional to the physical violence or other form of coercion that individual is willing to wield in order to enforce it. Society (i.e. social contracts between individuals or groups) requires the threat of violence and coercion in order to exist, as otherwise freeloading becomes the optimal strategy. Many individuals will not share power willingly, or allow personal freedom to others, you don't seem to account for those refusniks.
If you or I believe that's a viable political structure is a different conversation.
Actually no, the essence of this question (Is anarchy equal to chaos, or is it something else?) lies exactly at the nexus you have tried to sidestep - is 'political anarchy' viable, and if not, what defines the difference between anarchy and simple chaos? Without answering that question, and thus defining who holds the power, you can't really say what anarchism means, and whether it is worth considering as a political philosophy.
PS I love your term political anarchy, with it's implication that we can achieve political anarchy, as you narrowly define it, without all other kinds of anarchy following in its wake. Your political anarchy seems to depend on entirely rational humans acting in their own long-term self-interest.
You realise that the chart you linked to *removes the top 5% of sales* (where the majority of the money is) in order to distort the statistics? It's meaningless puffery, and I'm afraid the BB platform has changed far too late to attract any developers.
You missed out: heavily promoted by one of the largest companies in the world over a period of years, and including an app/media store where it is possible to make money (from adverts and from sales), and, most importantly of all - bundled for free with stuff which consumers want to buy (cheap smartphones).
I don't think Android's success has much to do with the software, which has been pretty rough at the edges for most of its existence and is only now getting some level of polish and sophistication.
I seriously doubt that Aristotle could have comprehended calculus or designed a Mars rover.
I seriously doubt Democritus or Archimedes would agree with you.
The article is bunk though. First there's no proof that intellect has declined, only speculation. Then there's the silly idea that there are no selective pressures today. There are, but they are working in different areas, and death as an outcome doesn't really matter to evolution unless it is very early, all that matters is reproduction.
As a counterpoint to his specious argument about Ancient Greece being the pinnacle of human evolution, we could look at all the foolish endeavours, demagogy, rotten politics, incessant warfare, slavery, genocide and ignorance which prevailed at the time, and feel that we have collectively come a long way.
I'd say it should be under 50%, and completely agree that government in the US (and most countries) is far too large. But I'd disagree about where to cut with most republicans. I think the military budget should be slashed, the DHS dismantled, the public health system properly reformed to be single payer for drugs and services (and thus vastly cheaper), and the political system reformed to outlaw lobbying and corporate support for politicians above very small amounts (to bring them down to the level of individuals). I'd also close tax loopholes for taxing the rich, so that a the tax burden was distributed more evenly. Those measures would reduce your tax burden immensely. This is a hard problem, but so far *no* US politician has the guts to try to address it - there are too many vested interests.
Re healthcare, it's perfectly fine to have private healthcare *for those who want it*, but the gov. is going to end up paying for lots of people in a civilised country, and you should be aware that it would be cheaper for everyone if that was done via a public system rather than the bizarre and inefficient system involving insurance companies that you have in the US at present - I'd abolish Obamacare, and replace it with true public hospitals - like the police service, this is something better and cheaper done by the state to provide baseline care. Those who can afford it can then pay for more advanced care themselves.
I wouldn't get too hung up on how many people pay tax or not though, frankly that's a smokescreen of hate to avoid letting you think about the hard problems - the truth on taxation is this:
EVERYONE, no matter how poor, pays some tax - sales tax, excise tax, fuel taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, etc
The vast majority of tax take is always going to be flat taxation and income tax on the middle classes, because that's where all the easy money is
The rich will always find ways to avoid most of income tax (curious that you don't find this a problem?), and thus avoid their share of the burden
The poor will never be able to contribute very much, so your best bet is trying to lift them out of poverty, not tax them more
The big issue is probably sandboxing, so you'd need a VM which was sandboxed like Java or Javascript, and then to deal with the constant security headaches as people find vulnerabilities. If it was a trivial problem someone would have done it by now, but please do go ahead :)
Just curious, where do you live? If it's the US, the problems were very minor there in comparison to other parts of the world.
There is such a thing as society, and it paid for your roads, your schools, your prisons, your police force, your fire service, and it subsidises your hospitals, your water mains, your gas supplies, your reliable electricity supplies and the very fabric of civilisation you take for granted to start your business. Society is funded through taxes, and gives back in services and support (i.e. not in money) - it's an exchange of some income for the privileges living in a civilised country give you. Think on that next time you view yourself as a wealth creator and everyone working for the government as parasites.
If you're intending to cash in your 401k and it is currently in stocks, can't you move your 401k into safer instruments gradually before retirement? If so you should be moving it gradually to cash starting right now, before you are subject to massive volatility. With all the money printing going on, related boom and busts in stocks and other assets, and various wars about to start, the safest place to be is (paradoxically) cash, at least in the short term. Over just a few years, the money lost to inflation will not be as significant as the risk due to volatility in stocks, bonds or anything else.
Yep. The submission raises more questions about the submitter than the person who just left for me. People who rate others as incompetent with no redeeming features are often incompetent themselves in my experience. The level of paranoia in the submission is also remarkable, but I guess all this checking and for 'hidden messes and security flaws' might be a good excuse for not doing anything useful for the business. Any problems for the next few months can just be blamed on the recent turkey without introspection as to how they might have ended up with this employee or how they might have created such a mess with no-one esle knowing.
If you have decent processes in place, hidden messes and security flaws would not be possible without extreme malice and intelligence (not possible for an 'idiot' and a 'turkey'), if you don't and cannot change the processes, leave, as you should recognise the workplace is dysfunctional (and that starts right at the top of the department and goes all the way down).
This is Google doing a few things at once:
Leaking this story makes sure the press will notice if Apple does delay or reject the app
Leaking this story helps to explain to users that Google is not the only one deciding to keep Google Maps off iOS.
Leaking this story helps users pressure Apple to provide the Google Maps app
Leaking this story puts pressure on Apple and encourages customers to look at Android
It's perfectly reasonable for them to talk up in advance the fact they are developing this app and will submit soon, given the opaque review process, and Apple's blatant abuse of their control over the ecosystem in the past (banning previous google apps like latitude and google voice for example), which has led to other apps from their competitors languishing in 'review' limbo for months, or having important features yanked (like buying books in the kindle app) because Apple wants a cut of every transaction.
The billion dollar business you refer to was based on dealing in stolen information, but somehow you neglected to mention that. He was previously convicted in Germany for insider trading and embezzlement, and in hong kong for illegal share dealing. He then bought his citizenship in New Zealand. Classy.
Kim.com is a huckster who moves from country to country as he exhausts their supply of goodwill o r is convicted of fraud, and you've fallen for his cheap demagogy. Congratulations.
Oh come on, what about plays for sure?
Not attempting to twist things, but I felt that particular article was somewhat sensationalist and simplistic. I don't agree with everything he says, and feel he should be stronger in condemning the Taliban, but do agree with his opposition to drone strikes, and his insistence that a *military* solution is simply not going to work, and is in fact counterproductive. His hesitancy in condemning the Taliban outright is explained by him saying that it would be somewhat cowardly for him to do this (though profitable politically), and then leave the badlands for Islamabad and let his agency workers be killed by the Taliban for his words. That doesn't convince me personally, but it is not supportive of the Taliban in the Swat area, it's hinting that they're murderous thugs.
I suspect personally that the Taliban timed the hit on Malala (a cruel attack on an admirable girl, which khan condemned) in order to try to undermine moderates like him and polarise the debate - the Taliban (if we can talk about them as one group) would much rather deal with a military which is funded by the Americans and condones drone strikes (which work for them when they kill civilians) than deal with civilian politicians who attempt to negotiate with tribal leaders, end violence, and ultimately isolate the remaining Taliban as a criminal element (which is what his proposals seem to amount to). His position on it is quite nuanced and he is no radical Taliban supporter:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/eye-for-an-eye-will-not-solve-anything-1.1094629
Here is an example:
Regardless of what his opinions are on the military situation in Pakistan, I don't think it's appropriate for border guards to harass prominent foreign politicians at the US border, particularly not those who are relatively moderate, *even if they disagree with US foreign policy*.
I think his words were twisted there - he said - "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad ". That does not mean he endorses the Taliban's world view, far from it, just that he understands the motivation for fighting a foreign invader, and is playing to a complex home crowd. In fact he's been threatened with assassination by the Taliban in the past, has been strongly critical of them and went to visit the girl recently shot by them (he wouldn't go near that if he wanted to support them, they explicitly told him he was not welcome, but he went anyway). Just because he's not willing to condemn everyone fighting the Americans in Afghanistan does not make him a war monger. Here is the full quote, minus the editorialising from the guardian (who want page views after all):
“In the guise of the Taliban, there are several criminal gangs who didn’t even spare PTI workers by demanding extortion money.” The PTI chief said that “drone attacks are carried out with the consent of the government, and in reaction, Taliban attack civilians.” Citing an ex-employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency, he said that unless the Pakistani government withdraws its support as a coalition partner on the ‘war on terror’ it will be unable to overcome the insurgency in the country. “A military operation can be a small part of a larger solution but a conflict cannot be resolved through military operations alone,”.
If you discredit the moderate voices like Khan's you're left with the extremists like the Taliban, or Musharraf - really the west should be trying to work with moderates like him, not intimidate him into silence or funding dictators like Musharraf and the ISI who have channelled funds to these terrorists everyone is so keen to profess hatred for. It's no coincidence that Bin Laden was hiding in plain site in Pakistan, and more terrorism targeting US troops will be funded by Pakistan (and thus indirectly the US) until the US look for a political solution rather than performing drone assassinations, indiscriminately showering the Pakistani military and security services with money and hoping it will all just go away.
EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE. This should be:Imran Khan detained by US customs over opposition to drone strikes as in the original submission, or if you prefer Pakistani politician..., but not Pakastani...
Worse than that, this bit of the title was the only change made to the submission! oh well. Hopefully an editor will fix it at some point.