But a builder declaring that the building won't receive sunlight might lose more in sales than by installing solar cells that don't generate much power.
Many home buyers don't realize the amount of sunlight that will fall on a place at other times of the day/year, before buying their houses.
Which fraud? The situation I described in the GP post was a completely legal one, though highly immoral one, under your definition of "tax all income before ANY expenses". Very similar to the tax loopholes Google, Apple etc. are deploying right now.
If there were "penalties" possible for legal but immoral activities, you wouldn't have needed to propose "tax all income before ANY expenses" - one could have directly prosecuted the "moral frauds", so to speak.
What if the non-profits start making these untaxed "benefits" but remain legally non-profits because the profits are magicked away by accountants? Currently they don't need to because one could as well do it as a for-profit company - just show much less profits on the books with accounting magic like Google, Apple, do in various countries. It won't be too difficult to use the same magic to vanish the profit completely and call themselves non-profit.
1. NGOs, charities, and other non-profits are not companies or corporations.
So do you mean to relax the rules for non-profits? I thought you said no deductions, no exemptions.... , for any reason? Suddenly you start exempting non-profits? How about cooperatives?
What if the non-profits start making these untaxed "benefits" but remain legally non-profits because the profits are magicked away by accountants? Currently they don't need to because one could as well do it as a for-profit company - just show much less profits on the books with accounting magic like Google, Apple, do in various countries. It won't be too difficult to use the same magic to vanish the profit completely and call themselves non-profit.
2. bank deposits are not income for the bank. they are monies held in trust by the bank. they do not own the deposits, which remain at all times the property of the depositor.
When I asked you to define income, you did not specify so many riders. What happened? Suddenly started feeling very exempting? A few minutes ago, you were about can't get simpler than that, and now one legal trickery after another?
So an advertiser in South Korea pays Google. South Korea doesn't have this "no exemptions" law, so Google safely transfers it to Google Ireland without paying tax. This $100 can be spent at will of Google US headquarters, but legally belong to Google Ireland so US cannot tax it. Now Google Headquarters decides to use it, so uses the money in Google Ireland to buy an internet startup company in Denmark.
One more company in Google US headquarters control without paying any US taxes. This is because of the "exemption" you gave to banks.
Ok, unconventional definition - appears more like revenue than "gross income".
Some businesses deemed good for society by society - e.g. non-profits, cooperatives have zero or low profit margins. The society has decreed that they should pay negligible taxes owing to their negligible "income" - income as defined by common man, and benefit to society.
Banks, by the nature of their business, have very very low profit margins - the amount you deposit into "your" bank account is "income" for the bank unless the future expense of them having to pay you back is deducted. How would you feel getting at best 65% of your money back, assuming 35% corporate tax rates?
But the limit of "fragments" is that it can't display views from two different apps
Yes, that is why I said "The thing that you are calling tiled windows". You called eclipse dividing eclipse's own window into multiple pieces also "tiled windows".
Anyway, as always, with all the effort you have invested in making all these complaints about maximized window paradigm of Android in the last 2 years, you could have bought a device with easy access to Xposed and be using this feature for over a year now.
Android browsers don't seem to me the user's agent any more due to their weird business position - but I have loaded over 12 pages (slashdot with hundreds of comments, heavy news websites, etc.) in Dolphin browser on OnePlus One phone sometime in 2014, with none of them re-loading when their tab is selected for use. YMMV.
Irrelevant. Your statement "According to The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting" is not only false, it is a lie.
You could have said According to my take on The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting
There was really no personal attack. Anyone unwilling to make the smallest effort to use a niche feature has no leg to stand on, even to complain that the feature is "missing". Because it is not missing at all - just takes effort to use like most other niche features.
Why did the paradigm change from overlapping windows, which you claim that only a small minority can use, to forced maximization instead of from overlapping windows to tiled windows?
The thing that you are calling 'tiled windows" is very much available, and Android framework even provides convenient layouts for that. It is similar to HTML frames, or emacs "windows". App developer has to typically choose that and code for that - one popular strategy is to use navigation in phones vs. these "tiled windows" in tablets. Might even be a Google recommendation, for all I know or care.
Why developers don't choose this - reason could be similar. They must deem (and I agree) most people will find that too complicated and choosing a good frame size is an exercise in endless indecision given the zillion possible screen configurations.
And why did the paradigm change from preserving the state of open HTML documents to destroying it?
I don't understand who is destroying open HTML documents. OEMs, like in most devices, under-provision RAM. Web-developers, like most developers these days, hog too much RAM. Anyway they want to push you to use their "app" so that they can steal your contacts, location and attention. So too many open web-pages leads to reload if same tab is revisited. Saving to disk at a RAM starved point of time might be thought of as too much work for little benefit, though it can be useful.
Around 2 years ago, I chose a 3 GB RAM Android phone when they were rare. Around a dozen of pages of those days could be opened together in the browser (along with hosts based ad blocking, of course). The number has since reduced, but it is still comfortable enough that I don't call it a paradigm of destroying HTML documents.
The biggest feature for me, actually, is the notifications. Basically, with just a phone, you have the choice between cranking up the volume on notifications and having them be super-loud when you're in a quiet environment, or turning them down and miss missing them if you're in a loud environment. The watch has a dynamo
I don't understand - can't you just keep the phone in your pocket? Or are you naked, or in clothes without pockets, or in wet/strong magnetic field conditions? Not sure how well the watch behaves in strong magnetic fields, though.
You acquiesce? You are too blinded by what you want , to see the truth for itself. Even earlier, when I said the majority didn't use overlapping windows, you were harping on what they should use, and what would benefit them rather than the facts that present themselves about what "is".
What you want doesn't matter because you are a non-entity : too lazy to make it, too slavish to corporations to annoy them by doing "prohibited" things.
I read a lot of complainers, and I have seen only you complaining about the android single window maximization "limitation". Which, for last 3 years is only a limitation for timid people scared to death of voiding warranty.
Anyway, given that you are complaining about an extremely popular way of doing UI, don't even anecdotally counter my observation of no non-geek ever using overlapping windows; the burden of proof is on you to prove it is a real requirement for any considerable number of people.
I think what you find most difficult to" get over " is the fact that one needs to make an effort to get what one wants if it is different from what most others wasn't.
"Someone who wants to run free software ought to be prepared to manufacture the device on which to run it"
No, this has nothing to do with free software. This is about the ability to use a niche feature with zero effort : no contributing money, skill or making even childish "sacrifices" like voiding warranties, or researching about a device before buying it, or buying it from abroad "freer" markets.
Even with free software, niche features typically take more effort - scripting the software, finding arcane configurations, getting questions answered on StackOverflow - all take harder work than using features that used by a larger majority.
You don't deny that the vast majority has no use for overlapping windows
You are correct that for the purpose of this present discussion, I did not deny this. But in general, I also don't assert this.
Not asserting this doesn't matter - because one in a million use this feature. "Have a use" doesn't matter - because they do not use.
Most people have a use for much better understanding of law, sciences, their own body, history. Most people have a use for much greater skill with guitar, guns, cars, gadgets, aircraft. It doesn't matter - because most people do not have that understanding or skill.
You're still worried about the loss of a feature with minuscule usage
You try writing and testing a computer program on a laptop computer with neither overlapping windows nor tiled windows. This means you can't see the program and its output, nor the program and its variables in a debugging session, nor the variables and output so far, side by side. I imagine programming in this sort of all-maximized environment would be far less efficient than even a two-way split.
Most people develop software with neither overlapping windows nor tiled windows.
This means you can't see the program and its output Yes, they can't. People who cannot fix their own cars have handicaps too. Most people have both these handicaps - inability to use overlapping windows as well as inability to fix their own cars.
the program and its variables in a debugging session Firstly many "developers" don't use a "debugger". Even those who do - visual studio, eclipse, idea intellisense, emacs debugger (some of the most popular code editing tools used today) all split the window itself such that people can see the program and its variables together because they like most other people cannot use overlapping windows.
I imagine programming in this sort of all-maximized environment would be far less efficient than even a two-way split The world is inefficient. Get over it. It doesn't matter here - what matters is how many people are actually using overlapping windows - the proportion is negligible as I have been asserting - and you agree for all practical purposes.
So make a device then. You're not making any point :
1. You don't deny that the vast majority has no use for overlapping windows 2. You don't deny loss of features is common in paradigm changes 3. You're still worried about the loss of a feature with minuscule usage without being ready to do anything about it?
The tyranny of the majority is seldom resisted by people lacking courage to void warranty.
How many non computer Greeks have you seen properly using multiple windows when overlapping? I have seen 2 kinds - those using always maximized windows, and those too uninformed to do even that.
Should be denied? Of course not, you are most welcome to launch an operating system UI that enables what you want.
On the other hand, are you implying that current operating system UI vendors should be forced to use a paradigm that they don't think their user base has the brains to use?
That was funny. As if the vast multitudes have an attention span to be able to use multiple windows. In android, in most applications you can select text and "share" it with another. That is more than what most can handle.
Android is much much easier to learn/teach for most people than X11/GNU/Linux - especially as the activities done typically are very different given that there is only touch screen and no full keyboard/mouse. With a full keyboard, you can do much more, but the learning curve is more than what people are ready to climb.
Yes, but when paradigm changes, some features are lost. With horse riding and carriages replaced by cars, the feature of horses knowing their way home and taking you home if you are drunk, injured or dead - was lost. Self driving cars have still not materialized after over a century.
There is nothing in Microsoft's compiler (or anyone else's) that requires the programs it compiles to use some kind of "phone home mechanism" or have an internet connection in order for a program to continue to run (unless of course, the program itself was a browser, or something else that used the internet to perform its basic task).
There is nothing in Microsoft's compiler (or anyone else's) that requires the programs it compiles to be closed source. So false dichotomy.
If your game won't run, or your movie won't play, or your software won't load because it can't contact the mother ship, then you don't own it or control it. This has nothing to do with whether the source is open or not.
If the source is open (truly open, in the FOSS sense), you could just disable the mother ship contact code, recompile and redistribute.
but I don't think they are really trying to promote social justice at all
Regardless of your signature message, when someone says SJW - they don't mean someone trying to promote social justice. The urban dictionary tells me :
"A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation"
The purpose of an SJW is not social justice at all. These are conditions in which a word/phrase comes to mean the opposite of what it should mean - similar to sarcasm.
Slashdot Mirror
But a builder declaring that the building won't receive sunlight might lose more in sales than by installing solar cells that don't generate much power.
Many home buyers don't realize the amount of sunlight that will fall on a place at other times of the day/year, before buying their houses.
Ok, your temper tantrums show you need to be talked to in even smaller chunks.
Which tax evasion are you talking about, in the situation I described here ?
Which fraud? The situation I described in the GP post was a completely legal one, though highly immoral one, under your definition of "tax all income before ANY expenses". Very similar to the tax loopholes Google, Apple etc. are deploying right now.
If there were "penalties" possible for legal but immoral activities, you wouldn't have needed to propose "tax all income before ANY expenses" - one could have directly prosecuted the "moral frauds", so to speak.
OK, I'll go slow. One at a time :
What if the non-profits start making these untaxed "benefits" but remain legally non-profits because the profits are magicked away by accountants? Currently they don't need to because one could as well do it as a for-profit company - just show much less profits on the books with accounting magic like Google, Apple, do in various countries. It won't be too difficult to use the same magic to vanish the profit completely and call themselves non-profit.
1. NGOs, charities, and other non-profits are not companies or corporations.
So do you mean to relax the rules for non-profits? I thought you said no deductions, no exemptions .... , for any reason? Suddenly you start exempting non-profits? How about cooperatives?
What if the non-profits start making these untaxed "benefits" but remain legally non-profits because the profits are magicked away by accountants? Currently they don't need to because one could as well do it as a for-profit company - just show much less profits on the books with accounting magic like Google, Apple, do in various countries. It won't be too difficult to use the same magic to vanish the profit completely and call themselves non-profit.
2. bank deposits are not income for the bank. they are monies held in trust by the bank. they do not own the deposits, which remain at all times the property of the depositor.
When I asked you to define income, you did not specify so many riders. What happened? Suddenly started feeling very exempting? A few minutes ago, you were about can't get simpler than that, and now one legal trickery after another?
So an advertiser in South Korea pays Google. South Korea doesn't have this "no exemptions" law, so Google safely transfers it to Google Ireland without paying tax. This $100 can be spent at will of Google US headquarters, but legally belong to Google Ireland so US cannot tax it. Now Google Headquarters decides to use it, so uses the money in Google Ireland to buy an internet startup company in Denmark.
One more company in Google US headquarters control without paying any US taxes. This is because of the "exemption" you gave to banks.
Ok, unconventional definition - appears more like revenue than "gross income".
Some businesses deemed good for society by society - e.g. non-profits, cooperatives have zero or low profit margins. The society has decreed that they should pay negligible taxes owing to their negligible "income" - income as defined by common man, and benefit to society.
Banks, by the nature of their business, have very very low profit margins - the amount you deposit into "your" bank account is "income" for the bank unless the future expense of them having to pay you back is deducted. How would you feel getting at best 65% of your money back, assuming 35% corporate tax rates?
Great, now define gross income.
But the limit of "fragments" is that it can't display views from two different apps
Yes, that is why I said "The thing that you are calling tiled windows". You called eclipse dividing eclipse's own window into multiple pieces also "tiled windows".
Anyway, as always, with all the effort you have invested in making all these complaints about maximized window paradigm of Android in the last 2 years, you could have bought a device with easy access to Xposed and be using this feature for over a year now.
Android browsers don't seem to me the user's agent any more due to their weird business position - but I have loaded over 12 pages (slashdot with hundreds of comments, heavy news websites, etc.) in Dolphin browser on OnePlus One phone sometime in 2014, with none of them re-loading when their tab is selected for use. YMMV.
Irrelevant. Your statement "According to The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting" is not only false, it is a lie.
You could have said According to my take on The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting
There was really no personal attack. Anyone unwilling to make the smallest effort to use a niche feature has no leg to stand on, even to complain that the feature is "missing". Because it is not missing at all - just takes effort to use like most other niche features.
Why did the paradigm change from overlapping windows, which you claim that only a small minority can use, to forced maximization instead of from overlapping windows to tiled windows?
The thing that you are calling 'tiled windows" is very much available, and Android framework even provides convenient layouts for that. It is similar to HTML frames, or emacs "windows". App developer has to typically choose that and code for that - one popular strategy is to use navigation in phones vs. these "tiled windows" in tablets. Might even be a Google recommendation, for all I know or care.
Why developers don't choose this - reason could be similar. They must deem (and I agree) most people will find that too complicated and choosing a good frame size is an exercise in endless indecision given the zillion possible screen configurations.
And why did the paradigm change from preserving the state of open HTML documents to destroying it?
I don't understand who is destroying open HTML documents. OEMs, like in most devices, under-provision RAM. Web-developers, like most developers these days, hog too much RAM. Anyway they want to push you to use their "app" so that they can steal your contacts, location and attention. So too many open web-pages leads to reload if same tab is revisited. Saving to disk at a RAM starved point of time might be thought of as too much work for little benefit, though it can be useful.
Around 2 years ago, I chose a 3 GB RAM Android phone when they were rare. Around a dozen of pages of those days could be opened together in the browser (along with hosts based ad blocking, of course). The number has since reduced, but it is still comfortable enough that I don't call it a paradigm of destroying HTML documents.
You conveniently skipped this part of the article
[quote]Note: Teen passengers donâ(TM)t have the same helpful effect with teen drivers.[/quote]
You conveniently forgot all people in the world are not teens.
So the other live passengers physically present in the car are likely to help, whereas the on-phone conversation partner typically cannot.
Again, 1.75 is almost 2.3.
No, it is 23.9 % (or 31% looking in the other direction) different.
The biggest feature for me, actually, is the notifications. Basically, with just a phone, you have the choice between cranking up the volume on notifications and having them be super-loud when you're in a quiet environment, or turning them down and miss missing them if you're in a loud environment. The watch has a dynamo
I don't understand - can't you just keep the phone in your pocket? Or are you naked, or in clothes without pockets, or in wet/strong magnetic field conditions? Not sure how well the watch behaves in strong magnetic fields, though.
You acquiesce? You are too blinded by what you want , to see the truth for itself. Even earlier, when I said the majority didn't use overlapping windows, you were harping on what they should use, and what would benefit them rather than the facts that present themselves about what "is".
What you want doesn't matter because you are a non-entity : too lazy to make it, too slavish to corporations to annoy them by doing "prohibited" things.
I read a lot of complainers, and I have seen only you complaining about the android single window maximization "limitation". Which, for last 3 years is only a limitation for timid people scared to death of voiding warranty.
Anyway, given that you are complaining about an extremely popular way of doing UI, don't even anecdotally counter my observation of no non-geek ever using overlapping windows; the burden of proof is on you to prove it is a real requirement for any considerable number of people.
I think what you find most difficult to" get over " is the fact that one needs to make an effort to get what one wants if it is different from what most others wasn't.
"Someone who wants to run free software ought to be prepared to manufacture the device on which to run it"
No, this has nothing to do with free software. This is about the ability to use a niche feature with zero effort : no contributing money, skill or making even childish "sacrifices" like voiding warranties, or researching about a device before buying it, or buying it from abroad "freer" markets.
Even with free software, niche features typically take more effort - scripting the software, finding arcane configurations, getting questions answered on StackOverflow - all take harder work than using features that used by a larger majority.
You don't deny that the vast majority has no use for overlapping windows
You are correct that for the purpose of this present discussion, I did not deny this. But in general, I also don't assert this.
Not asserting this doesn't matter - because one in a million use this feature. "Have a use" doesn't matter - because they do not use.
Most people have a use for much better understanding of law, sciences, their own body, history. Most people have a use for much greater skill with guitar, guns, cars, gadgets, aircraft. It doesn't matter - because most people do not have that understanding or skill.
You're still worried about the loss of a feature with minuscule usage
You try writing and testing a computer program on a laptop computer with neither overlapping windows nor tiled windows. This means you can't see the program and its output, nor the program and its variables in a debugging session, nor the variables and output so far, side by side. I imagine programming in this sort of all-maximized environment would be far less efficient than even a two-way split.
Most people develop software with neither overlapping windows nor tiled windows.
This means you can't see the program and its output
Yes, they can't. People who cannot fix their own cars have handicaps too. Most people have both these handicaps - inability to use overlapping windows as well as inability to fix their own cars.
the program and its variables in a debugging session
Firstly many "developers" don't use a "debugger". Even those who do - visual studio, eclipse, idea intellisense, emacs debugger (some of the most popular code editing tools used today) all split the window itself such that people can see the program and its variables together because they like most other people cannot use overlapping windows.
I imagine programming in this sort of all-maximized environment would be far less efficient than even a two-way split
The world is inefficient. Get over it. It doesn't matter here - what matters is how many people are actually using overlapping windows - the proportion is negligible as I have been asserting - and you agree for all practical purposes.
So make a device then. You're not making any point :
1. You don't deny that the vast majority has no use for overlapping windows
2. You don't deny loss of features is common in paradigm changes
3. You're still worried about the loss of a feature with minuscule usage without being ready to do anything about it?
The tyranny of the majority is seldom resisted by people lacking courage to void warranty.
How many non computer Greeks have you seen properly using multiple windows when overlapping? I have seen 2 kinds - those using always maximized windows, and those too uninformed to do even that.
Should be denied? Of course not, you are most welcome to launch an operating system UI that enables what you want.
On the other hand, are you implying that current operating system UI vendors should be forced to use a paradigm that they don't think their user base has the brains to use?
That was funny. As if the vast multitudes have an attention span to be able to use multiple windows. In android, in most applications you can select text and "share" it with another. That is more than what most can handle.
Android is much much easier to learn/teach for most people than X11/GNU/Linux - especially as the activities done typically are very different given that there is only touch screen and no full keyboard/mouse. With a full keyboard, you can do much more, but the learning curve is more than what people are ready to climb.
Yes, but when paradigm changes, some features are lost. With horse riding and carriages replaced by cars, the feature of horses knowing their way home and taking you home if you are drunk, injured or dead - was lost. Self driving cars have still not materialized after over a century.
There is nothing in Microsoft's compiler (or anyone else's) that requires the programs it compiles to use some kind of "phone home mechanism" or have an internet connection in order for a program to continue to run (unless of course, the program itself was a browser, or something else that used the internet to perform its basic task).
There is nothing in Microsoft's compiler (or anyone else's) that requires the programs it compiles to be closed source. So false dichotomy.
If your game won't run, or your movie won't play, or your software won't load because it can't contact the mother ship, then you don't own it or control it. This has nothing to do with whether the source is open or not.
If the source is open (truly open, in the FOSS sense), you could just disable the mother ship contact code, recompile and redistribute.
As for a car, Tesla yes, Apple likely, Google? WTF?
Hypothetical, but does this WTF stand even if Tesla and Apple's cars are "cloudy" but Google's is not ?
Help them think critically by talking unintelligible things to them?
If the child understands "does not mean". Or "that it is a complex problem". Most under 7 don't, but good luck.
At least your weedicide was 100% effective against the weeds which did not like your garden and "chose" not to infest it at all.
but I don't think they are really trying to promote social justice at all
Regardless of your signature message, when someone says SJW - they don't mean someone trying to promote social justice. The urban dictionary tells me :
"A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation"
The purpose of an SJW is not social justice at all. These are conditions in which a word/phrase comes to mean the opposite of what it should mean - similar to sarcasm.