Refusing to hand it over should be grounds for immediate termination and loss of all benefits. And that's exactly the kind of shit stomping Trump will be doing all across the government when he takes office.
You really want us to believe your guys are going through a Walmart checkout close to 32 times an hour? Even ignoring all shopping time, loading time, and downtime between jobs, that's impossible.
One of the best way to digest and present data is with visualizations and dashboards.
No. Fuck no. Dashboards are universally awful and visualizations range from being acceptable but oversimplified to being tools for outright lying about your data set.
Do your statistical analysis however you please as long as you show your work, justify your methodology, and still provide the full fucking data set for review.
You think they don't have access to "private" trackers?
Private trackers fall into 2 categories: A - "Private" with content and users and spies. They send out invite waves to maintain a user base, but they invite people with no verification of who they are. B - Private with nothing on them because they're actually private and have very few users.
If Alphabet gifts to the employees Alphabet pays the tax. If that gift is then donated, the employee, as the recipient and owner of the gift, gets to deduct it. It doesn't matter if the employee never sees the gift - if Alphabet donates it in their name that's how it works.
If Alphabet is saying they're doing this on behalf of the employees (as the summary claims), it's exactly as I've stated.
The same rules still apply with regards to who pays tax on gifts, small business or not. That link was simply the first search result. Look up more if you want.
It's not a measurement, it's a count. And it's fucked up for 1 of 2 reasons (or both):
A: Facebook lied to sell more ads and make more money, or was incompetent with the queries but didn't care (because they want to sell more ads and make more money). Solution: LOL.
B: Facebook uses shitty bigdata nosql non relational horseshit instead of a proper relational database. Solution: Use something sane, like SQL. You can trivially get a count of how many people have seen an ad and how many have clicked it, with whatever parameters (date range, region, gender, age, race, etc.) the evil advertisers want. Your results will be deterministic, complete, and correct. Yes, even for a distributed, web-scale database. Modern shit makes all the syncing and log shipping transparent. At worst you query (the full, complete, correct) database as of x minutes old, where x is your syncing window in minutes. Even if the queries are too hard for you to figure out, you can export your shit to many statistical analysis tools to do it for you.
Read. 110010001000 is a troll, but this statement:
no more large leaps like we have had for the previous 40 years.
Does not mean:
there will be no more large leaps in 40 years
as you bitch about.
The statement means that we will have no more (ever, within your lifetime, whatever) large leaps like the large leaps we've had throughout the PAST 40 years.
If they would have gotten a $1000 device, they would have had to pay taxes on the $1000. They didn't get a $1000 device and so they didn't have to pay taxes on it. Same as if they received $1000, then gave it away, they wouldn't have had to pay taxes on the $1000...
Corporations get to write of that $1000 dollars whether they donate it to charity or pay an employee.
What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf"
Alphabet absolutely could be doing this on the employee's behalf, thus giving the ability to deduct it. As I don't work for them, I don't know. If I did, I'd be asking for a receipt if there was any mention of "on your behalf" or "in your name" in the email.
If Alphabet is actually donating shit in the employee's names, then the employee can deduct it. Alphabet pays the tax on the gift to the employee (see the link). The employee donates the gift and deducts it.
The fact that the employee never received the gift directly doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not Alphabet is donating on its employee's behalf, as stated in the summary, or if it's donating in its own name.
The giver (Alphabet) pays the gift tax, not the recipient (the employee). The donor (the employee) gets to deduct it.
If Alphabet handed the employees a gift and the employee then handed it to a non-profit for donation, the employee would be able to deduct it and not pay tax for receiving the gift.
In this case, the donation is made in the name of the employees, automatically, on their behalf, without their input. So Alphabet pays tax on the gift (I guarantee you they're not actually doing so, but that's beside the point), then Alphabet makes the donation in the employee's name, then the employee gets to deduct it. Tax liability lies with Alphabet. The ability to deduct it lies with the employee who "made" the donation.
Today, Putin hacked Slashdot and in the chaos an old, pre-CIA cert was in use for a brief period. Don't worry, we're now using a Russia-Approved cert, comrades. In before FAKE NEWS.
I need to run powershell as an admin to change the execution policy. Generally, our users don't run as admin. (It's impossible to fully wrangle laptop users, unfortunately, but even they have UAC and are trained not to run random crap.)
1: 36.7 to 38 is nothing. It's shit when you account for the ever-increasing ticket prices and incessant inflation. You're also getting a huge boost from Asia, which adds a lot to the global revenue numbers but not much to Hollywood's pockets.
You need to look at ticket sales, which peaked in 2002 and have been in steady decline ever since. This is despite a massive increase in production budgets and advertising, and an 11.5% increase in US population, US ticket sales in 2015 were 16.3% lower than in 2002.
2: 2015 included 2 major outliers. Jurassic World and Star Wars Episode VII:The Force Awakens.
3: Yeah, China (and the rest of Asia) are huge. The problem is distribution costs and channels in Asia, local pricing, and all the other shit involved with international releases means that the people making movies in the US see pennies on the dollar from Asia's revenue. This is before Hollywood accounting - this is real.
This isn't new or surprising. The result is the same thing we've seen for the past few decades. Big studios become increasingly reliant on blockbusters. In the 80s and 90s, if a movie didn't turn a profit after 6 weeks in the US they relied on rental and home release revenues to put them in the black. This lifeline became stronger when DVDs reached critical mass, but shortly after streaming started eating into that.
Many studios had signed streaming contracts that ended up screwing them over because they accepted a low bid as free money - icing on top of the DVD sales. This is what ultimately caused a big kerfuffle that continues to this day with Netflix and other providers being unable to secure the rights to to a library worth writing home about. Studios saw DVD sales evaporate and saw Netflix and competitors becoming behemoths, just like iTunes did with music. They jacked up the costs, took the ball and went home to make their own streaming / digital download services, sign exclusivity deals for more cash from a specific service, etc.
While this was going on, studios started to rely more on the international revenue because it was a generally untapped market. Stars in big films now spend as much or more time on press junkets abroad in countries that can't understand a word they say. International revenues supplanted the rental / home sale revenues after BluRay failed to take the world by storm and served as a stop gap during the streaming depression when studios were locked into cheap agreements.
However, even with the growing Asian market, and new contracts for streaming that generate big cash for studios, the rising production and advertising costs and tumbling ticket sales in the US have studios terrified. The effect this continues to have on films is obvious. It's been a trend since the 80s and 90s. Studios rely more and more on focus-tested, formulaic drivel, mega blockbusters, and keep jacking up ticket prices as much as the market will bear. (Remember the 3D tax?) Additionally, if a movie isn't a hit it'll be pulled from rotation in 2 or 3 weeks instead of the 6-8 or more, and there are fewer and fewer cheapo theaters that run movies a month or two after initial release. (A few decades ago they were called "dollar theaters", several years ago they were barely any cheaper than the megaplexes.)
And what do you do when you pull a movie because it bombed? You slot another in its place. ASAP. You bolster your lineup with guaranteed hits. (Disney will churn out new Star Wars films rapidly from now until they stop making money.) You space out your titles not just against competitive releases, but against your quarterly reports. You don't let a director do a pet project unless they also sign on to put their name on some by-the-numbers blockbuster piece of shit. You do more and bigger media buys. You hire a PR team to run Twitter accounts for the stars in the run up to release. You have a huge event at the San Diego ComicCon despite your movie having nothing to do with comics. You fly people across the globe on a non-stop
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. The more they deny the more they confirm.
Yup, it's 100% public information.
Refusing to hand it over should be grounds for immediate termination and loss of all benefits. And that's exactly the kind of shit stomping Trump will be doing all across the government when he takes office.
This judge isn't qualified to practice law in the United States.
Agreed. That's why he's practicing law in Florida.
H-1B needs fixed
Take that "needs <past tense verb>" shit back to Reddit.
You really want us to believe your guys are going through a Walmart checkout close to 32 times an hour?
Even ignoring all shopping time, loading time, and downtime between jobs, that's impossible.
One of the best way to digest and present data is with visualizations and dashboards.
No. Fuck no. Dashboards are universally awful and visualizations range from being acceptable but oversimplified to being tools for outright lying about your data set.
Do your statistical analysis however you please as long as you show your work, justify your methodology, and still provide the full fucking data set for review.
Case in point: The global warming conspiracy.
You think they don't have access to "private" trackers?
Private trackers fall into 2 categories:
A - "Private" with content and users and spies. They send out invite waves to maintain a user base, but they invite people with no verification of who they are.
B - Private with nothing on them because they're actually private and have very few users.
I'd pay triple for a car with that feature, so I could run over retards and then say "It wasn't me, my automatic car did it, sue them.".
Their platform? People will fuck.
They're literally trying to stop sex. Not gonna happen.
If Alphabet gifts to the employees Alphabet pays the tax. If that gift is then donated, the employee, as the recipient and owner of the gift, gets to deduct it.
It doesn't matter if the employee never sees the gift - if Alphabet donates it in their name that's how it works.
If Alphabet is saying they're doing this on behalf of the employees (as the summary claims), it's exactly as I've stated.
The same rules still apply with regards to who pays tax on gifts, small business or not. That link was simply the first search result. Look up more if you want.
I'm not construing anything. It depends on what Alphabet does and whose name they put shit in.
It's not a measurement, it's a count. And it's fucked up for 1 of 2 reasons (or both):
A: Facebook lied to sell more ads and make more money, or was incompetent with the queries but didn't care (because they want to sell more ads and make more money).
Solution: LOL.
B: Facebook uses shitty bigdata nosql non relational horseshit instead of a proper relational database.
Solution: Use something sane, like SQL. You can trivially get a count of how many people have seen an ad and how many have clicked it, with whatever parameters (date range, region, gender, age, race, etc.) the evil advertisers want. Your results will be deterministic, complete, and correct. Yes, even for a distributed, web-scale database. Modern shit makes all the syncing and log shipping transparent. At worst you query (the full, complete, correct) database as of x minutes old, where x is your syncing window in minutes. Even if the queries are too hard for you to figure out, you can export your shit to many statistical analysis tools to do it for you.
Read. 110010001000 is a troll, but this statement:
no more large leaps like we have had for the previous 40 years.
Does not mean:
there will be no more large leaps in 40 years
as you bitch about.
The statement means that we will have no more (ever, within your lifetime, whatever) large leaps like the large leaps we've had throughout the PAST 40 years.
If they would have gotten a $1000 device, they would have had to pay taxes on the $1000. They didn't get a $1000 device and so they didn't have to pay taxes on it. Same as if they received $1000, then gave it away, they wouldn't have had to pay taxes on the $1000...
Corporations get to write of that $1000 dollars whether they donate it to charity or pay an employee.
Stick to TurboTax, please.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses...
What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf"
Alphabet absolutely could be doing this on the employee's behalf, thus giving the ability to deduct it.
As I don't work for them, I don't know. If I did, I'd be asking for a receipt if there was any mention of "on your behalf" or "in your name" in the email.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses...
If Alphabet is actually donating shit in the employee's names, then the employee can deduct it.
Alphabet pays the tax on the gift to the employee (see the link). The employee donates the gift and deducts it.
The fact that the employee never received the gift directly doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not Alphabet is donating on its employee's behalf, as stated in the summary, or if it's donating in its own name.
The giver (Alphabet) pays the gift tax, not the recipient (the employee). The donor (the employee) gets to deduct it.
BZZZT!
99.9% of the time, the entity giving the gift pays the tax on the gift. https://www.irs.gov/businesses...
If Alphabet handed the employees a gift and the employee then handed it to a non-profit for donation, the employee would be able to deduct it and not pay tax for receiving the gift.
In this case, the donation is made in the name of the employees, automatically, on their behalf, without their input. So Alphabet pays tax on the gift (I guarantee you they're not actually doing so, but that's beside the point), then Alphabet makes the donation in the employee's name, then the employee gets to deduct it. Tax liability lies with Alphabet. The ability to deduct it lies with the employee who "made" the donation.
He was the meat that willingly crawled into said tin can. And you?
Today, Putin hacked Slashdot and in the chaos an old, pre-CIA cert was in use for a brief period. Don't worry, we're now using a Russia-Approved cert, comrades. In before FAKE NEWS.
5) Writing my book
Oh boy! We've got a live one here, fellas!
Describe several of the "many ways".
I need to run powershell as an admin to change the execution policy. Generally, our users don't run as admin. (It's impossible to fully wrangle laptop users, unfortunately, but even they have UAC and are trained not to run random crap.)
1: 36.7 to 38 is nothing. It's shit when you account for the ever-increasing ticket prices and incessant inflation. You're also getting a huge boost from Asia, which adds a lot to the global revenue numbers but not much to Hollywood's pockets.
You need to look at ticket sales, which peaked in 2002 and have been in steady decline ever since. This is despite a massive increase in production budgets and advertising, and an 11.5% increase in US population, US ticket sales in 2015 were 16.3% lower than in 2002.
2: 2015 included 2 major outliers. Jurassic World and Star Wars Episode VII:The Force Awakens.
3: Yeah, China (and the rest of Asia) are huge. The problem is distribution costs and channels in Asia, local pricing, and all the other shit involved with international releases means that the people making movies in the US see pennies on the dollar from Asia's revenue. This is before Hollywood accounting - this is real.
This isn't new or surprising. The result is the same thing we've seen for the past few decades. Big studios become increasingly reliant on blockbusters. In the 80s and 90s, if a movie didn't turn a profit after 6 weeks in the US they relied on rental and home release revenues to put them in the black. This lifeline became stronger when DVDs reached critical mass, but shortly after streaming started eating into that.
Many studios had signed streaming contracts that ended up screwing them over because they accepted a low bid as free money - icing on top of the DVD sales. This is what ultimately caused a big kerfuffle that continues to this day with Netflix and other providers being unable to secure the rights to to a library worth writing home about. Studios saw DVD sales evaporate and saw Netflix and competitors becoming behemoths, just like iTunes did with music. They jacked up the costs, took the ball and went home to make their own streaming / digital download services, sign exclusivity deals for more cash from a specific service, etc.
While this was going on, studios started to rely more on the international revenue because it was a generally untapped market. Stars in big films now spend as much or more time on press junkets abroad in countries that can't understand a word they say. International revenues supplanted the rental / home sale revenues after BluRay failed to take the world by storm and served as a stop gap during the streaming depression when studios were locked into cheap agreements.
However, even with the growing Asian market, and new contracts for streaming that generate big cash for studios, the rising production and advertising costs and tumbling ticket sales in the US have studios terrified. The effect this continues to have on films is obvious. It's been a trend since the 80s and 90s. Studios rely more and more on focus-tested, formulaic drivel, mega blockbusters, and keep jacking up ticket prices as much as the market will bear. (Remember the 3D tax?) Additionally, if a movie isn't a hit it'll be pulled from rotation in 2 or 3 weeks instead of the 6-8 or more, and there are fewer and fewer cheapo theaters that run movies a month or two after initial release. (A few decades ago they were called "dollar theaters", several years ago they were barely any cheaper than the megaplexes.)
And what do you do when you pull a movie because it bombed? You slot another in its place. ASAP. You bolster your lineup with guaranteed hits. (Disney will churn out new Star Wars films rapidly from now until they stop making money.) You space out your titles not just against competitive releases, but against your quarterly reports. You don't let a director do a pet project unless they also sign on to put their name on some by-the-numbers blockbuster piece of shit. You do more and bigger media buys. You hire a PR team to run Twitter accounts for the stars in the run up to release. You have a huge event at the San Diego ComicCon despite your movie having nothing to do with comics. You fly people across the globe on a non-stop
Buy the DVD and rip it. Or Buy the DVD and take it to WalMart and have them do it for you.
Cry more.
What discussion? What needs to be moved forward?
It's a simple fact that people need to be reminded of.
If anything, things need to be rolled back.