Poker is a game of incomplete information. Go is a game of complete information. Making an A.I. good at playing go is interesting because of the game's complexity and vast universe of permutation, but making an A.I. good at playing poker is probably more interesting in terms of decision-assistance (for example). Making an A.I. good at both would be quite the breakthrough.
We weren't, at any point, discussing if French taxes are justified. If you want to discuss the workings of French taxation, how fair it is, and such things, I'm open for that. For example, I tend to think French taxation is excessively heavy on small businesses and too lenient towards big companies, while being weirdly quirky in between - and is overall exceedingly complicated. But that doesn't change much about the matter at hand because, guess what? Google doesn't fall into the "small business" category.
Ultimately, though, the question at hand, relevant to the subject matter, is if Google is entitled to exempt itself from tax laws that apply to other companies. And the answer is clearly "no". The answer will be the same regardless of country.
By the way, I'm not trying to make an argument that taxing Google beyond "that" is reasonable, because I don't understand what you mean by "that".
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
Nope. You'll have to back that up with credible figures for me to consider it. My statement stands: the taxes due by Google based on the profit it makes through its French customer base has to be paid in France following French tax laws. There's absolutely no getting out of it. It's not even a matter of morals, it's a matter of equality before the law. Google decides to do business in France, following French tax laws is part of doing the business. Doing otherwise would be a attack on free market.
I fucking hate practically everything about Israel's policy since Yitzakh Rabin's assassination, but within the framework it put itself (and its people) into, banning drones, even toy drones, is a sensible move. Toy drones aren't an essential good, and creatively used with nefarious intent, they could ultimately endanger Israeli lives - while banning them doesn't endanger any Palestinian life. All in all, while not a positive, it's a non-negative.
Many things have to change about Israel's behavior, but as far as things go, I'm quite "so what?" about this particular issue.
This has always been AMD's angle in the business. Well, sorta. Fifteen years ago or about, their angle was to be as good for cheaper in the middle range of CPUs. Intel still had the upper hand for top chips. But Intel grew worried of AMD's breakthroughs, and used underhanded methods to keep AMD from nibbling more of its market. Intel threatened CPU dealers to stop providing them if they also provided AMD stuff. Not complying would have meant, for distributors, cutting themselves from the very solvable population of power-users who of course were inclined to buy Intel stuff, but also other things as well. And that, folks, was a clear case of abuse of a dominant position, using one's dominance in a market (top range CPUs) to undermine a competitor's penetration in another market (middle-range CPUs). And the very reason why Intel was condemned by the European Union years ago. For stifling competition. It's impossible to evaluate precisely how much funds that practice cost to AMD in funds that could have gone, in parts, to its R&D to make better products. But it was a very clear case of abuse, and of how there needs to be regulations in order to prevent entrenched monopolies.
Anyway, I'm glad AMD is catching up. I'm an extremist lefty as far as economics is concerned: I don't like it when there's only one big name in a market. Or, to put it another way, Capitalism is the worst enemy of Free Market.
Hmm, how do you do when someone asks you for your number in order to call you later? By know, my own phone number is the only one I know, but I certainly know it by heart. It's simply too convenient.
I'm amused by the notion that a warhawk like you asks me to be civil. In my opinion, your constant blathering of mindless propaganda is more insulting than any expletive I might use in my posts.
I agree it's a bit of a moot point in practice, but it doesn't speak highly of the state of constitutional workings within the USA themselves. If the USA can project whatever amount of armed force they want on the whim of the Executive power, what's the point of having constitutional provisions requiring the approval of Congress to declare war? That's a long running case of exploiting procedural loopholes if there was any.
Would you happen to be a native German speaker? You seem to imply so. I have a question: several people in those threads have been put off by the word "sedition", with all the baggage it carries, but is it a correct translation from the original German ruling? My German is too rusty for me to dig for the actual German words used, so if you could give pointers...
I'm all in favor of deporting all billionaires to Mars. That would make it possible to fix the economy that has been broken by them gaming it over and over.
I'm not claiming that's what they are actually doing but, if they were, it would look exactly like that. And it's a trick that's especially useful on populations that are prone to protesting. Like, say, the French.
Step One: a government's minister makes an statement about planned policies that cause an outrage.
Step Two: the prime minister of said government claims reassuringly that said policies aren't actually on the table.
Step Three: the government implements less outrageous policies of the same nature that wouldn't have looked acceptable to the public if it weren't for step One and Two having been performed.
I'm pretty sure there's a name for this trick, but I couldn't find it. It's certainly akin to the Argument to Moderation fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Poker is a game of incomplete information. Go is a game of complete information. Making an A.I. good at playing go is interesting because of the game's complexity and vast universe of permutation, but making an A.I. good at playing poker is probably more interesting in terms of decision-assistance (for example). Making an A.I. good at both would be quite the breakthrough.
By what you state about your intellectual evolution, you seem to be well prepared to avoid falling into the Aging Physicist's Syndrome.
We weren't, at any point, discussing if French taxes are justified. If you want to discuss the workings of French taxation, how fair it is, and such things, I'm open for that. For example, I tend to think French taxation is excessively heavy on small businesses and too lenient towards big companies, while being weirdly quirky in between - and is overall exceedingly complicated. But that doesn't change much about the matter at hand because, guess what? Google doesn't fall into the "small business" category.
Ultimately, though, the question at hand, relevant to the subject matter, is if Google is entitled to exempt itself from tax laws that apply to other companies. And the answer is clearly "no". The answer will be the same regardless of country.
By the way, I'm not trying to make an argument that taxing Google beyond "that" is reasonable, because I don't understand what you mean by "that".
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
Nope. You'll have to back that up with credible figures for me to consider it. My statement stands: the taxes due by Google based on the profit it makes through its French customer base has to be paid in France following French tax laws. There's absolutely no getting out of it. It's not even a matter of morals, it's a matter of equality before the law. Google decides to do business in France, following French tax laws is part of doing the business. Doing otherwise would be a attack on free market.
Granted, Google's customers (sorry for the mistake) can be companies, but it's still not Google paying the tax. That's simply not how sales tax works.
Google payed sales tax? Weird, sales tax is ultimately paid by consumers, not companies.
The very point of the process is that Google has avoided paying the equivalent of its income tax.
Well, for one thing, in France, you can strike punitive damages in all cases. Fines, however...
It's not the only thing that factors in, but Google profits from using French infrastructures, that cost money to be in the state they are.
I fucking hate practically everything about Israel's policy since Yitzakh Rabin's assassination, but within the framework it put itself (and its people) into, banning drones, even toy drones, is a sensible move. Toy drones aren't an essential good, and creatively used with nefarious intent, they could ultimately endanger Israeli lives - while banning them doesn't endanger any Palestinian life. All in all, while not a positive, it's a non-negative.
Many things have to change about Israel's behavior, but as far as things go, I'm quite "so what?" about this particular issue.
Woosh!
This has always been AMD's angle in the business. Well, sorta. Fifteen years ago or about, their angle was to be as good for cheaper in the middle range of CPUs. Intel still had the upper hand for top chips. But Intel grew worried of AMD's breakthroughs, and used underhanded methods to keep AMD from nibbling more of its market. Intel threatened CPU dealers to stop providing them if they also provided AMD stuff. Not complying would have meant, for distributors, cutting themselves from the very solvable population of power-users who of course were inclined to buy Intel stuff, but also other things as well. And that, folks, was a clear case of abuse of a dominant position, using one's dominance in a market (top range CPUs) to undermine a competitor's penetration in another market (middle-range CPUs). And the very reason why Intel was condemned by the European Union years ago. For stifling competition. It's impossible to evaluate precisely how much funds that practice cost to AMD in funds that could have gone, in parts, to its R&D to make better products. But it was a very clear case of abuse, and of how there needs to be regulations in order to prevent entrenched monopolies.
Anyway, I'm glad AMD is catching up. I'm an extremist lefty as far as economics is concerned: I don't like it when there's only one big name in a market. Or, to put it another way, Capitalism is the worst enemy of Free Market.
Hmm, how do you do when someone asks you for your number in order to call you later? By know, my own phone number is the only one I know, but I certainly know it by heart. It's simply too convenient.
If it only impacts what happens on Youtube's website, based only on interactions with said website, I'd tend to say it's kosher.
I'm amused by the notion that a warhawk like you asks me to be civil. In my opinion, your constant blathering of mindless propaganda is more insulting than any expletive I might use in my posts.
Citation needed or STFU.
I agree it's a bit of a moot point in practice, but it doesn't speak highly of the state of constitutional workings within the USA themselves. If the USA can project whatever amount of armed force they want on the whim of the Executive power, what's the point of having constitutional provisions requiring the approval of Congress to declare war? That's a long running case of exploiting procedural loopholes if there was any.
Some systemd haters can't help bringing it on the table even when it's totally irrelevant. Makes them feel smart.
The main inconvenience of Bitcoin is that it doesn't reliably lose value when you sit on it. That's a huge flaw.
Will you have to open the Start menu to stop the car?
"of cause", "thought off", "the assumed"
I'm not usually one to nitpick on spelling, but this was a bit much on such a short clause.
Would you happen to be a native German speaker? You seem to imply so. I have a question: several people in those threads have been put off by the word "sedition", with all the baggage it carries, but is it a correct translation from the original German ruling? My German is too rusty for me to dig for the actual German words used, so if you could give pointers...
I'm all in favor of deporting all billionaires to Mars. That would make it possible to fix the economy that has been broken by them gaming it over and over.
I'm not claiming that's what they are actually doing but, if they were, it would look exactly like that. And it's a trick that's especially useful on populations that are prone to protesting. Like, say, the French.
I'm late on this, but I think it's worth stating.
Step One: a government's minister makes an statement about planned policies that cause an outrage.
Step Two: the prime minister of said government claims reassuringly that said policies aren't actually on the table.
Step Three: the government implements less outrageous policies of the same nature that wouldn't have looked acceptable to the public if it weren't for step One and Two having been performed.
I'm pretty sure there's a name for this trick, but I couldn't find it. It's certainly akin to the Argument to Moderation fallacy.