I might be wrong but when I searched for RTOSs QNX was the only POSIX offer. Linux RTOS offers were just an RTOS with linux bubbled as an independent task.
Well, what's wrong with the Linux RTOS's? I develop on one of those and it makes development a fucking breeze compared to developing on "real" RTOS's. Especially when debugging.
If you drive a vehicle all day every day and regularly maintain it, it will last well over half a million miles.
The Uber rules specify the maximum age (possibly mileage as well) of the car. It doesn't matter if the car will last a million miles when you have to replace it after 100k miles.
I'm not arguing that "$FOO isn't considered deductible" where $FOO is "driving to work", or "buying a suit for work".
I'm arguing that it should be deductible. You are presenting the way the world works - but I already know the way the world works and I'm complaining that it is unfair. You have not addressed the unfairness, you have only reiterated (multiple times) that this is the way things are. I already know the way things are.
My argument is, if a company can deduct every single one of its expenses as a cost of business, it is unfair to prevent individuals from deducting their cost of maintaining employment. Right now, I cannot deduct the cost of maintaining employment, proportionally or otherwise, which gives businesses an unfair advantage - their tax burden is lighter than mine.
I'd be fine with deducting a proportion based on the proportion used to maintain employment. Having to maintain a minimum hygene standard to maintain employment would let me deduct part of the water bill. Having the need for business attire to maintain emplyment would let me deduct the cost fo the suit (who uses a tie unless its for business? Weddings, maybe? Funerals?). Hell, a portion of the car repayment (I don't have one, but still) would be deducted.
Right now none of the costs incurred in maintaining employment are deductible. That is unfair, when businesses have all of their costs deductible.
As far as revising the definition, I did not mean "You revised the definition you previously presented", I meant "You are presenting a new definition for the word PROFIT that differs from what it actually means in both english and economics", which is that which is left over after costs have been subtracted fom revenue.
Profit has never meant anything to do with production, and I don't recall seeing your definition in any of the economics textbooks that I've had the misfortune to read. I also don't recall seeing your definition anywhere else. Regardless, even if we settle on your definition, the systems as I stated it are still unfair, as I stated above.
If you want to tax only the profit, then go ahead and tax only the profit, but do it fairly for everyone. If you want to tax the revenue, then go ahead and tax only the revenue, but do it for everyone.
If (as the TFA says) countries want to tax based on revenue, then their decision is logically sound - they are already taxing their citizens on revenue, why not tax companies on revenue too?
Profit is revenue minus the total operating expense involved in producing a product.
Really, you just added that qualifier at the end to make the argument work. Profit is *always* revenue minus expenses.
But, okay, let's say that I go with your revised definition, in which profit only exists when there is a product. In this case, the "product" is my labour to my employer - I effectively *am* the product for 8 hours a day, and I am selling myself - why can I not deduct the costs involved in selling myself?
Even if we go with your definition of profit, there is no explanation of why my suit, tie, briefcase and lunch is not deductible. The continued sale of my product (me) depends on transport to and from the employer - why is my transport not deductible?
As employees we don't get to deduct the cost of maintaining employment, whlie businesses get to deduct the cost of doing business. There is no rational explanation for this.
Because a business purchases productive output from other businesses, pays wages to workers who produce, and keeps the remaining revenue as profit. Thus the worker produces, and his wage represents the productive output; the suppliers also produce, and so the cost to the business to purchase that input is their productive output; and, of course, the business's profits are tied to nothing except the productive output of the business (which is the same productive output as the business's employees).
Understood
That means taxing corporate net profits and not their expenses taxes production: if a table is made, taxing the worker's wages and the corporate profits both of the table manfuacturer and all involved suppliers (including the truckers shipping those supplies) at a rate of 10% gets you 10% of the market price of a table. By taxing strictly and effectively in this manner, an average effective tax rate of 10% collects 10% of GDP and represents 10% of all goods and services produced and sold, in the long run.
Taxing corporate revenues ("gross profits"), on the other hand, double-taxes wages at the end of the pipeline; and far more than double-taxes supply everywhere else. This means the more suppliers you have in a chain, the heavier your taxes, and the higher the effective tax rate applied to a product.
I understand all that perfectly well. It doesn't explain why corporates get taxed on profit while individuals get taxed on revenue.
Corporate revenue taxation heavily-favors monopolies, notably vertically-integrated monopolies as per Andrew Carnegie.
That doesn't explain why individuals are taxed on revenue while corporates are taxed only on profits. How is me selling my labour different from a company selling their collective labour?
When an entity is taxed on revenue (regardless of whether that entity is incorporated or not) then that entity will have to adjust their spending behaviour to compensate for the tax on revenue. The entity receives $100, then that entity must be $10 (assuming 10% tax). As individuals we adjust our spending to pay that tax. As corporates we subtract the cost of existing (paying all the bills) and only pay tax on what is left.
I'm curious why my cost of existence is not exempt from taxes the way a corporate's cost of existence is exempt from taxes.
On companies as successful as these companies I think it's an awesome idea ! There's no way for them to weasel their way out of a tax on turnover.
It's also a lot fairer that taxes are calculated the same for everybody. Why is it that companies get to subtract their costs and pay tax on the result while individuals are taxed on revenue, not profit? To add insult to injury, in addition to only get taxed on money that they were not able to spend, the companies get a lower tax rate than individuals too.
Seems like a horrible idea - what if the company makes a real loss and can't pay the tax? There's a reason that we tax profits.
Seems like a great idea - these are the companies pushing hardest for social justice "to ensure equality". Make them pay an equal percentag share of the taxes.
Thanks for engaging with us, Whipslash. The majority of us appreciate it.
While I have your attention, though, can I ask that you come up with some sort of plan to stop the haemorrhaging of projects on Sourceforge? I host a single open-source project on Sourceforge and have been considering moving it out due to the declining relevance.
I don't really know what you can do to make it relevant again - maybe do a survey to find all the pain-points of current users (for retention), and if possible a survey of the competition's usres to find out what they like about the competition.
... 3. "Bing" is the famous and most liked character of Friends...
Then they should have called it "Chandler". They could have used that instead of Cortana. Not only would they be differentiating themselves by having a male voice for their assistant, they would also have a single name by which to call all of their assistant's functions, just as Google does.
IIRC, male voices are harder to hear over background noise; you have to raise the volume. Female voices (slightly higher pitched than male voices) can be heared at a lower volume.
if ever I've heard the brand name being used, it seems to be in the context of a joke
That's actually true in my case, literally the only time I've heard Bing used is as a joke, "let me bing that for you" (laughter) and then they'll Google it, or DDG it, or whatever. Having your brand exist as a joke means you probably need to fix it.
Lately google has been less accurate than bing. Anything search starting with "+torrent +magnet..." gets no relevant results on google but has relevant results on bing.
I've also noticed with google certain searches silently default to americanised english no matter what is entered, and results using the original keywords are ommitted. "Serialised data objects" gets turned into "Serialized data objects", and pages with the UK spelling are not returned even though they are more relevant than the US-spelling. Bing gets this correct and returns the same results regardless of which spelling is used.
Lately google search has just not been returning relevant pages while bing has been. It's gotten so bad that I sometimes (like, for torrents) don't even bother trying google first.
If they don't get their shit together I'm writing my own spider and starting my own damn search engine to find the things I am looking for on the internet.
I cannot find a reference to that anywhere. Please, feel free to link a reference to the cited scientists who refuted Damore's essay.
No, because there have been many many links like that shared in the many many discussions about this on Slashdot already, and if you don't know about them it's because you don't want to.
You don't post a link because it doesn't exist, and you know damn well that it doesn't exist.
It's also one of the things explicitly stated in the report by the Labor Board.
That's funny - I don't see it in there; maybe I'm reading the wrong one - can you give me a link to the report that you are reading?
But the people who did that science say that he didn't understand what they were doing, and that he therefore was not citing their work correctly, but to try to make it prove something it doesn't prove.
I cannot find a reference to that anywhere. Please, feel free to link a reference to the cited scientists who refuted Damore's essay.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Actually, no, they did not.
We are in a position now where a group of lawyers and administrators are deciding what published scientific research can be cited and what cannot.
The "authorities" found that Damore was legitimately fired with barely any investigation into the cited papers, and you agree with the authorities, yet when the authorities found that gamergate "victims" were faking threats against themselves (the FBI report after they investigated Wu) you held firm that the FBI were ill-equipped to investigate a threat.
You think a bunch of lawyers can rule on what is science and what is not, yet a bunch of trained criminal investigators are not fit to investigate crimes.
I want my computer to run slow. Please leave Ultimate Performance off, maybe insert some extra latency in a few places just because...
Everyone is missing the point - they aren't offering a slow and fast version of Windows, they are offering "meltdown-patch/no-meltdown-patch" versions.
Well, at least one employee seems to think that is fine.
Well...
" "Of course I cannot force you to write a review (let alone tell you what to write) -- but I should not have to,"
The real problem is tyrannical managers who believe that they own their employees. Telling employees to commit fraud (review their own products without disclosing that they are employees) is crossing a line. This behaviour smells of management who rule their little fiefdom with very little oversight. They believe that they are at the top of the tree and a manager who wants to dictate to their employees the type of fraud to commit has been getting away with way too much already, which is why they feel safe in managing by fear.
Hopefully the shareholders drop this manager and find one who leads the employees with vision, not one who drives them with fear.
I cannot force a manager to stop acting like royalty, but I should not have to.
Other financial technology companies like Robinhood are written cloud-first and cloud-native with APIs in languages like Python and Go and Ruby and what have you. They're just going to eat up these old companies as their overhead costs are much lower and their code better documented and aligned more closely with modern programming practices. Their most modern competitors are running windows software designed in the 1990s. It's ripe for disruption and companies like Robinhood are absolutely going to grind these old companies in to a fine paste in the next ten years.
No, they are not. It's easy to start a system from scratch regardless of the language you are using. Let robinhood get to the 10-year mark with their only-break-at-runtime-because-look-ma-no-compilation-step python software and they'll be crying for someone to buy them out.
It looks easy when you first write the software, but let's see how resistant to breakage it is after 10 years of maintenance when half the code was written by people who weren't part of the original team. Their brand-new system of $X kloc of python+ruby probably works well enough with the existing specs. I want to see how well it works when changing requirements cause that codebase to balloon to $(X * 3) in ten years.
Even worse, you're complaining about the current systems being written in obsolete languages; FFS Ruby is *already* obsolete and it's in their *new* system!
If people really want to screw with regulators, then they should start investing in highly volatile real currencies. Turkish Lira, South African Real, Colombian Peso.
You get the same volatility, the same amssive gains and losses.
All the benefits of Cryptocurrencies, but with none of the legal-greyness.
If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have goofed like that.
Can't you reduce further (diminished returns, yes), by removing other confirmable alibi, like being in prison or being deployed overseas, disabled, etc?
Yeah, but that raises the odds, not lowers it. It makes it better than the 1 in trillion that the OP specualted.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, in most cases now they're orders of magnitude safer than the distracted meatbag texting away on their iPhone.
There are no statistics that back up that assertion.
Or the late-night drunk trying to make it home from the bar without getting caught.
Yeah, because there are only type options - self-driving cars or drunk drivers. To be honest, you're an idiot.
I write my ECMAScript as if it were "Magical C". It ends up being easier to follow and compilers tend to optimize it better.
What the hell is magical C?
I might be wrong but when I searched for RTOSs QNX was the only POSIX offer. Linux RTOS offers were just an RTOS with linux bubbled as an independent task.
Well, what's wrong with the Linux RTOS's? I develop on one of those and it makes development a fucking breeze compared to developing on "real" RTOS's. Especially when debugging.
If you drive a vehicle all day every day and regularly maintain it, it will last well over half a million miles.
The Uber rules specify the maximum age (possibly mileage as well) of the car. It doesn't matter if the car will last a million miles when you have to replace it after 100k miles.
I'm not arguing that "$FOO isn't considered deductible" where $FOO is "driving to work", or "buying a suit for work".
I'm arguing that it should be deductible. You are presenting the way the world works - but I already know the way the world works and I'm complaining that it is unfair. You have not addressed the unfairness, you have only reiterated (multiple times) that this is the way things are. I already know the way things are.
My argument is, if a company can deduct every single one of its expenses as a cost of business, it is unfair to prevent individuals from deducting their cost of maintaining employment. Right now, I cannot deduct the cost of maintaining employment, proportionally or otherwise, which gives businesses an unfair advantage - their tax burden is lighter than mine.
I'd be fine with deducting a proportion based on the proportion used to maintain employment. Having to maintain a minimum hygene standard to maintain employment would let me deduct part of the water bill. Having the need for business attire to maintain emplyment would let me deduct the cost fo the suit (who uses a tie unless its for business? Weddings, maybe? Funerals?). Hell, a portion of the car repayment (I don't have one, but still) would be deducted.
Right now none of the costs incurred in maintaining employment are deductible. That is unfair, when businesses have all of their costs deductible.
As far as revising the definition, I did not mean "You revised the definition you previously presented", I meant "You are presenting a new definition for the word PROFIT that differs from what it actually means in both english and economics", which is that which is left over after costs have been subtracted fom revenue.
Profit has never meant anything to do with production, and I don't recall seeing your definition in any of the economics textbooks that I've had the misfortune to read. I also don't recall seeing your definition anywhere else. Regardless, even if we settle on your definition, the systems as I stated it are still unfair, as I stated above.
If you want to tax only the profit, then go ahead and tax only the profit, but do it fairly for everyone. If you want to tax the revenue, then go ahead and tax only the revenue, but do it for everyone.
If (as the TFA says) countries want to tax based on revenue, then their decision is logically sound - they are already taxing their citizens on revenue, why not tax companies on revenue too?
Profit is revenue minus the total operating expense involved in producing a product.
Really, you just added that qualifier at the end to make the argument work. Profit is *always* revenue minus expenses.
But, okay, let's say that I go with your revised definition, in which profit only exists when there is a product. In this case, the "product" is my labour to my employer - I effectively *am* the product for 8 hours a day, and I am selling myself - why can I not deduct the costs involved in selling myself?
Even if we go with your definition of profit, there is no explanation of why my suit, tie, briefcase and lunch is not deductible. The continued sale of my product (me) depends on transport to and from the employer - why is my transport not deductible?
As employees we don't get to deduct the cost of maintaining employment, whlie businesses get to deduct the cost of doing business. There is no rational explanation for this.
All individual income is profit.
No, it is not, unless you define "individual income" as "profit".
Profit = income - expenses (unless you're an individual, in which case expenses are ignored).
Because a business purchases productive output from other businesses, pays wages to workers who produce, and keeps the remaining revenue as profit. Thus the worker produces, and his wage represents the productive output; the suppliers also produce, and so the cost to the business to purchase that input is their productive output; and, of course, the business's profits are tied to nothing except the productive output of the business (which is the same productive output as the business's employees).
Understood
That means taxing corporate net profits and not their expenses taxes production: if a table is made, taxing the worker's wages and the corporate profits both of the table manfuacturer and all involved suppliers (including the truckers shipping those supplies) at a rate of 10% gets you 10% of the market price of a table. By taxing strictly and effectively in this manner, an average effective tax rate of 10% collects 10% of GDP and represents 10% of all goods and services produced and sold, in the long run. Taxing corporate revenues ("gross profits"), on the other hand, double-taxes wages at the end of the pipeline; and far more than double-taxes supply everywhere else. This means the more suppliers you have in a chain, the heavier your taxes, and the higher the effective tax rate applied to a product.
I understand all that perfectly well. It doesn't explain why corporates get taxed on profit while individuals get taxed on revenue.
Corporate revenue taxation heavily-favors monopolies, notably vertically-integrated monopolies as per Andrew Carnegie.
That doesn't explain why individuals are taxed on revenue while corporates are taxed only on profits. How is me selling my labour different from a company selling their collective labour?
When an entity is taxed on revenue (regardless of whether that entity is incorporated or not) then that entity will have to adjust their spending behaviour to compensate for the tax on revenue. The entity receives $100, then that entity must be $10 (assuming 10% tax). As individuals we adjust our spending to pay that tax. As corporates we subtract the cost of existing (paying all the bills) and only pay tax on what is left.
I'm curious why my cost of existence is not exempt from taxes the way a corporate's cost of existence is exempt from taxes.
On companies as successful as these companies I think it's an awesome idea ! There's no way for them to weasel their way out of a tax on turnover.
It's also a lot fairer that taxes are calculated the same for everybody. Why is it that companies get to subtract their costs and pay tax on the result while individuals are taxed on revenue, not profit? To add insult to injury, in addition to only get taxed on money that they were not able to spend, the companies get a lower tax rate than individuals too.
Seems like a horrible idea - what if the company makes a real loss and can't pay the tax? There's a reason that we tax profits.
Seems like a great idea - these are the companies pushing hardest for social justice "to ensure equality". Make them pay an equal percentag share of the taxes.
Thanks for engaging with us, Whipslash. The majority of us appreciate it.
While I have your attention, though, can I ask that you come up with some sort of plan to stop the haemorrhaging of projects on Sourceforge? I host a single open-source project on Sourceforge and have been considering moving it out due to the declining relevance.
I don't really know what you can do to make it relevant again - maybe do a survey to find all the pain-points of current users (for retention), and if possible a survey of the competition's usres to find out what they like about the competition.
For a start, at least>
My assessment of Apple: Pros: simple to use,
You must be high. Either that or you were born yesterday.
And then I remembered enjoying "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.
The others didn't hold up too well, but I saw Princess Bride recently and it still is terrific. Come to think of it, BttF3 held up okay as well.
... 3. "Bing" is the famous and most liked character of Friends ...
Then they should have called it "Chandler". They could have used that instead of Cortana. Not only would they be differentiating themselves by having a male voice for their assistant, they would also have a single name by which to call all of their assistant's functions, just as Google does.
IIRC, male voices are harder to hear over background noise; you have to raise the volume. Female voices (slightly higher pitched than male voices) can be heared at a lower volume.
if ever I've heard the brand name being used, it seems to be in the context of a joke
That's actually true in my case, literally the only time I've heard Bing used is as a joke, "let me bing that for you" (laughter) and then they'll Google it, or DDG it, or whatever. Having your brand exist as a joke means you probably need to fix it.
Lately google has been less accurate than bing. Anything search starting with "+torrent +magnet ..." gets no relevant results on google but has relevant results on bing.
I've also noticed with google certain searches silently default to americanised english no matter what is entered, and results using the original keywords are ommitted. "Serialised data objects" gets turned into "Serialized data objects", and pages with the UK spelling are not returned even though they are more relevant than the US-spelling. Bing gets this correct and returns the same results regardless of which spelling is used.
Lately google search has just not been returning relevant pages while bing has been. It's gotten so bad that I sometimes (like, for torrents) don't even bother trying google first.
If they don't get their shit together I'm writing my own spider and starting my own damn search engine to find the things I am looking for on the internet.
I cannot find a reference to that anywhere. Please, feel free to link a reference to the cited scientists who refuted Damore's essay.
No, because there have been many many links like that shared in the many many discussions about this on Slashdot already, and if you don't know about them it's because you don't want to.
You don't post a link because it doesn't exist, and you know damn well that it doesn't exist.
It's also one of the things explicitly stated in the report by the Labor Board.
That's funny - I don't see it in there; maybe I'm reading the wrong one - can you give me a link to the report that you are reading?
But the people who did that science say that he didn't understand what they were doing, and that he therefore was not citing their work correctly, but to try to make it prove something it doesn't prove.
I cannot find a reference to that anywhere. Please, feel free to link a reference to the cited scientists who refuted Damore's essay.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Actually, no, they did not.
We are in a position now where a group of lawyers and administrators are deciding what published scientific research can be cited and what cannot.
The "authorities" found that Damore was legitimately fired with barely any investigation into the cited papers, and you agree with the authorities, yet when the authorities found that gamergate "victims" were faking threats against themselves (the FBI report after they investigated Wu) you held firm that the FBI were ill-equipped to investigate a threat.
You think a bunch of lawyers can rule on what is science and what is not, yet a bunch of trained criminal investigators are not fit to investigate crimes.
I want my computer to run slow. Please leave Ultimate Performance off, maybe insert some extra latency in a few places just because...
Everyone is missing the point - they aren't offering a slow and fast version of Windows, they are offering "meltdown-patch/no-meltdown-patch" versions.
Well, at least one employee seems to think that is fine.
Well ...
" "Of course I cannot force you to write a review (let alone tell you what to write) -- but I should not have to,"
The real problem is tyrannical managers who believe that they own their employees. Telling employees to commit fraud (review their own products without disclosing that they are employees) is crossing a line. This behaviour smells of management who rule their little fiefdom with very little oversight. They believe that they are at the top of the tree and a manager who wants to dictate to their employees the type of fraud to commit has been getting away with way too much already, which is why they feel safe in managing by fear.
Hopefully the shareholders drop this manager and find one who leads the employees with vision, not one who drives them with fear.
I cannot force a manager to stop acting like royalty, but I should not have to.
Other financial technology companies like Robinhood are written cloud-first and cloud-native with APIs in languages like Python and Go and Ruby and what have you. They're just going to eat up these old companies as their overhead costs are much lower and their code better documented and aligned more closely with modern programming practices. Their most modern competitors are running windows software designed in the 1990s. It's ripe for disruption and companies like Robinhood are absolutely going to grind these old companies in to a fine paste in the next ten years.
No, they are not. It's easy to start a system from scratch regardless of the language you are using. Let robinhood get to the 10-year mark with their only-break-at-runtime-because-look-ma-no-compilation-step python software and they'll be crying for someone to buy them out.
It looks easy when you first write the software, but let's see how resistant to breakage it is after 10 years of maintenance when half the code was written by people who weren't part of the original team. Their brand-new system of $X kloc of python+ruby probably works well enough with the existing specs. I want to see how well it works when changing requirements cause that codebase to balloon to $(X * 3) in ten years.
Even worse, you're complaining about the current systems being written in obsolete languages; FFS Ruby is *already* obsolete and it's in their *new* system!
So far, Tesla has produced enough so that people are eager to throw money at it.
And? All companies get investment, until they don't. It's a tautology so I'm not sure what that sentence is supposed to prove.
It'd be hilarious, but you'll have to pay for it, because it is all "derivative work".
Only if you redistribute. Copyright covers redistribution, not consumption.
If people really want to screw with regulators, then they should start investing in highly volatile real currencies. Turkish Lira, South African Real, Colombian Peso.
You get the same volatility, the same amssive gains and losses. All the benefits of Cryptocurrencies, but with none of the legal-greyness.
If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have goofed like that.
Can't you reduce further (diminished returns, yes), by removing other confirmable alibi, like being in prison or being deployed overseas, disabled, etc?
Yeah, but that raises the odds, not lowers it. It makes it better than the 1 in trillion that the OP specualted.