Of course, it will result in a cat and mouse game, but in a cat and mouse game, the cat almost always wins.
Sorry for the digression, but real predator-prey dynamics are more complicated than that. Predators are far short of 100% efficient (citation needed; I am lazy!), and predator and prey populations are interdependent. I can only speculate about the analogy to regulation and disobedience, but it seems possible that it still holds up. There could be the same back-and-forth between the success of regulators and the success of those who circumvent or evade the regulation.
In the animal kingdom I don't think we have seen evidence that any predator hunted its prey to extinction (the bar for 100% efficiency) but humans, on the other hand, are pretty good at hitting the 100% mark.
Both use a metal firing pin and are designed with the non-functional metal piece, the Lulz version also uses some screws for structural strength that would be much harder to replace with something non-metallic.
You underestimate the strength of carbon fiber. The screws were added for strength but a number of alternative processes would lend just as much strength (but not be as easy to assemble).
... but beware. If you make the tax burden in your country too high, business will simply relocate completely - to somewhere more financially competitive.
Yes, they will simply move to a place like Uzbekistan. With low taxes, surely any business can flourish there.
The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
Last I checked, Apple doesn't write the laws. They don't even spend that much money lobbying. In fact, it is Congress that writes the laws.
Apple is huge, highly profitable, highly visible, and probably the US company with the single highest net favorable opinion among voters... If you want to make a splash, you start at the top. In case it's not obvious, the point of these hearings is not to actually find out how/why Apple or any other company does what they do (congress has no problem knowing all of that), it is to raise visibility so that there is political will that can be capitalized upon to change the tax code.
I'm hoping someone with some econ knowledge can enlighten me, although I fear since this is the Internet and Slashdot comments it's probably not going to happen;-) I've never heard of a situation where companies tried to pay taxes because they like them and if they're publicly traded they had a fiduciary responsibility to avoid them in order to maximize returns to the shareholders, and when forced to pay them they just try to find ways to force the cost down to the customer.
So why do we bother at all? Personally, I'd rather pay higher property/income taxes and abandon corporate taxes so that money comes back into the country for reinvestment and so that the companies don't leave the country and expand their business elsewhere.
If a corporation's income were tax free (or if the base rate were significantly lower) you would simply see everyone in the country start their own one-owner corporation and proceed to funnel all of their income in and out, tax free. See the problem? Then you need *another* rule to stop that from happening. The tax code looks as ugly as it does due to the vicious cycle of constituents rallying for less complex taxes, and corporations using political clout to make only everyone elses' taxes "less complex" (i.e. preserving the loopholes they cherish). Sadly, the political system as it stands is not well equipped to actually do the will of the people, and instead creates token efforts to appease the masses, while for the most part doing whatever it is that large corporations want.
Because the world is changing and it's no longer socially acceptable to just pay what's legal, it's considered inappropriate to pay less than what people would consider to be a fair amount. If you're paying $1 of tax on $1000 of earnings because you've cleverly nested your business assets overseas in a complex web of tax avoidance schemes, then most people would consider that unfair, even if it is legal.
A company is doing its shareholders a dis-service if they pay more tax than legally required.
If you don't like the amount of tax a corporation pays, due to their corporate structure, petition your government to close the loophole.
No one is challenging that, you just keep restating the obvious. The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
"Confidentiality: The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients of the email. This message may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies and notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone"
To the signature section of all my emails. Surely that qualifies as due-diligence concerning information security?
Sounds iron clad, you can just lock up everyone who calls/emails as they have obviously already broken your rule... [/snark]
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.
Typical routers (i presume they are talking about an 802.11 router here) will emit 150 to 250 mW per radio. Even in a 3 radio version the total power is still less than 1W (depending on how high the bandwidth utilization was), and it's certainly spread beyond just the plate of seeds sitting next to it. That 1W of heat energy would have an amazingly small change in overall temperature on the subject, probably not even enough to measure with conventional instruments.
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.
LOL yep, except... you do that now. Very few corporate insurance plans (the ones that cover the vast majority of the insured) penalize users for unhealthy behavior. And if their insurance does lapse for some reason, they will still turn up at the ER when they get pneumonia or cirrhosis, and your medical dollars will pay for that, too. The only way to avoid being penalize for the unsafe actions of others is to live your entire life without one single health malady... Good luck with that.
And here I was thinking the article would have been about how Google's search engine and personalization features are degrading the quality of its services to the point the whole company will collapse from the ground up as leaner competitors figure out how to do more with less.
Good Luck with that. Google, Facebook, Twitter are the new GM, Ford, Chrysler (not in that order necessarily). They are so big that the scale they leverage is untouchable to any newcomers to the market, no matter how lean or competitive they may be. It will be many years before the internet-era equivalent of the electric car comes along to shake up the industry, and a few more after that before the industry is actually shaken. Once your company is valued in the tens/hundreds of billions, competition gets squashed long before it has a chance at challenging you.
Good thing it only took him 30 years of development to come up with this. Had the software been around when I used a C64 (when they were the state of the art) I would probably still be looping around inside those maps.
Oooh, encryption, encryption which they'll open up for governments to look at upon demand. I would feel absolutely confident in using encryption which can be bypassed like it wasn't there.
I mean, if it's encrypted it must be secure and good, right?
No, because since they can (and do) bypass it, their encryption is utterly useless. They've already demonstrated they can and will obviate your encryption.
So, I ask again, why is BBM so important? Because your argument for encryption is garbage when they can step around that.
It depends on if these new apps can join a BES (blackberry enterprise server) BBM system. In that mode, the encryption is maintained privately on the server, not by BB, Inc. and therefore it is theoretically secure. I say theoretically since there is still no guarantee that there is not a backdoor present which allows for snooping of intercepted messages anyway...
So following that argument, the crosspollinatted weeds that are roundup resistant are owned by Monsanto and Monsanto is then responsible for any loss of income any farmer gets from those weeds reducing his crop yeild by stealing nutrients or sunlight. Monsanto you are in deep shit now.
Maybe, except the patent on Roundup itself expired back in 2000 so they don't technically "own" the process for making roundup resistant weeds...
He is allowed to purchase any seeds he wants. As I understand it, he chose to buy seeds already "'Roundup' resistant" but not pay the Monsanto price to keep his maintenance costs down and profits up, rather than purchasing non-genetically enhanced seeds which require more maintenance dollars on his part.
Whether or not Monsanto should be doing this is moot; they are following the rules of the game, and fiercely (almost insanely, IMO) going after any infringement at all. They will continue to do this until the rules change.
Unfortunately, getting the rules changed is a very, very tough row to hoe and I do not expect to see it happen in my (or my grand-kid's) lifetime.
This is the world we have made.
11 lawsuits (Monsanto's number) in 19 years is "almost insanely"? You must really have heart palpitations about the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits...
If he gets any cross pollination from other farmers using monsanto seeds, he'll get sued again. And he will lose. Farmers always lose these lawsuits where their fields got cross-pollinated by patented genes.
I frequently hear this claim, and I frequently hear the other side declare that it's bullshit. Neither side actually cites a court case. Does this actually happen, or not?
GIYF. That, and Monsanto puts a partial list of lawsuits on their own website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx which would be a good place to start from, for their side of the story. For the other side of the story, you can find farmers ranting about Monsanto pretty much everywhere on the internet.
The hang up comes when a farmer replants cross-pollinated seeds, and then intentionally roundup's the results so he has a crop of new 100% roundup-ready seeds to replant, even though he never bought seeds from monsanto to begin with. Farmers who just let the cross pollination go unchecked and never use roundup anyway are fine, monsanto would have to have probable cause (depending on who you ask) and test a LOT of seed to find the ones that are roundup-ready.
And i suggested that non-solid, intricately concave objects don't work well as molds/forms for casting. You are welcome to try, but it's a pretty bad idea.
It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.
It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.
You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).
You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.
Just saying.
3d printing is a tad more complicated; the printed objects aren't solid, they can have intricate internal structures. To do it all from molds you basically need to machine every internal piece anyway, which would be easier if you didn't even bother to start with a 3d printed version in the first place (just start with designs for actual guns).
The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?
It's the State Department's export controls rules that they are afoul of; it's unclear exactly how the DoD is involved, if at all.
He, against all odds, built a company of very good programmers who produced a very good product. When it comes to security, trust is everything, and the brand built a lot of trust out there. Some vultures came along, bought him out (that was what went wrong, if you had to pick a moment) and then started cashing in all the trust by turning McAfee antivirus into a money machine, not bothering with conventionally ethical business practices or even keeping decent coders around.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the digression, but real predator-prey dynamics are more complicated than that. Predators are far short of 100% efficient (citation needed; I am lazy!), and predator and prey populations are interdependent. I can only speculate about the analogy to regulation and disobedience, but it seems possible that it still holds up. There could be the same back-and-forth between the success of regulators and the success of those who circumvent or evade the regulation.
In the animal kingdom I don't think we have seen evidence that any predator hunted its prey to extinction (the bar for 100% efficiency) but humans, on the other hand, are pretty good at hitting the 100% mark.
Both use a metal firing pin and are designed with the non-functional metal piece, the Lulz version also uses some screws for structural strength that would be much harder to replace with something non-metallic.
You underestimate the strength of carbon fiber. The screws were added for strength but a number of alternative processes would lend just as much strength (but not be as easy to assemble).
... but beware. If you make the tax burden in your country too high, business will simply relocate completely - to somewhere more financially competitive.
Yes, they will simply move to a place like Uzbekistan. With low taxes, surely any business can flourish there.
The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
Last I checked, Apple doesn't write the laws. They don't even spend that much money lobbying. In fact, it is Congress that writes the laws.
Apple is huge, highly profitable, highly visible, and probably the US company with the single highest net favorable opinion among voters... If you want to make a splash, you start at the top. In case it's not obvious, the point of these hearings is not to actually find out how/why Apple or any other company does what they do (congress has no problem knowing all of that), it is to raise visibility so that there is political will that can be capitalized upon to change the tax code.
I'm hoping someone with some econ knowledge can enlighten me, although I fear since this is the Internet and Slashdot comments it's probably not going to happen ;-) I've never heard of a situation where companies tried to pay taxes because they like them and if they're publicly traded they had a fiduciary responsibility to avoid them in order to maximize returns to the shareholders, and when forced to pay them they just try to find ways to force the cost down to the customer.
So why do we bother at all? Personally, I'd rather pay higher property/income taxes and abandon corporate taxes so that money comes back into the country for reinvestment and so that the companies don't leave the country and expand their business elsewhere.
If a corporation's income were tax free (or if the base rate were significantly lower) you would simply see everyone in the country start their own one-owner corporation and proceed to funnel all of their income in and out, tax free. See the problem? Then you need *another* rule to stop that from happening. The tax code looks as ugly as it does due to the vicious cycle of constituents rallying for less complex taxes, and corporations using political clout to make only everyone elses' taxes "less complex" (i.e. preserving the loopholes they cherish). Sadly, the political system as it stands is not well equipped to actually do the will of the people, and instead creates token efforts to appease the masses, while for the most part doing whatever it is that large corporations want.
A company is doing its shareholders a dis-service if they pay more tax than legally required.
If you don't like the amount of tax a corporation pays, due to their corporate structure, petition your government to close the loophole.
No one is challenging that, you just keep restating the obvious. The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
I always carefully add:
"Confidentiality: The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the designated recipients of the email. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If
you are not an intended recipient of this message or an agent responsible for delivering
it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message
in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all
copies and notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone"
To the signature section of all my emails. Surely that qualifies as due-diligence concerning information security?
Sounds iron clad, you can just lock up everyone who calls/emails as they have obviously already broken your rule... [/snark]
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.
Typical routers (i presume they are talking about an 802.11 router here) will emit 150 to 250 mW per radio. Even in a 3 radio version the total power is still less than 1W (depending on how high the bandwidth utilization was), and it's certainly spread beyond just the plate of seeds sitting next to it. That 1W of heat energy would have an amazingly small change in overall temperature on the subject, probably not even enough to measure with conventional instruments.
throwing dynamite from snowmobiles when they look for oil
Damn, I should have been a geologist.
"What's all that dynamite for?"
"Who cares? it makes a real fucking cool boom..."
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.
LOL yep, except... you do that now. Very few corporate insurance plans (the ones that cover the vast majority of the insured) penalize users for unhealthy behavior. And if their insurance does lapse for some reason, they will still turn up at the ER when they get pneumonia or cirrhosis, and your medical dollars will pay for that, too. The only way to avoid being penalize for the unsafe actions of others is to live your entire life without one single health malady... Good luck with that.
I thought it was to burn the entire field to the ground, then sift the ashes over a magnet?
Better hope the needle was made of some robust metal, otherwise you will find that the haystack contained only a few pieces of ferrous dust.
And here I was thinking the article would have been about how Google's search engine and personalization features are degrading the quality of its services to the point the whole company will collapse from the ground up as leaner competitors figure out how to do more with less.
Good Luck with that. Google, Facebook, Twitter are the new GM, Ford, Chrysler (not in that order necessarily). They are so big that the scale they leverage is untouchable to any newcomers to the market, no matter how lean or competitive they may be. It will be many years before the internet-era equivalent of the electric car comes along to shake up the industry, and a few more after that before the industry is actually shaken. Once your company is valued in the tens/hundreds of billions, competition gets squashed long before it has a chance at challenging you.
The source code is zipped. For a 254 byte program. This just tickles me for some reason.
When you have a 300 baud modem on your C64 and Delphi Online charges by the minute, every last byte adds up!
Good thing it only took him 30 years of development to come up with this. Had the software been around when I used a C64 (when they were the state of the art) I would probably still be looping around inside those maps.
WTF is this article even about?
It's about horse burial rituals. Duh. Read TFA.
Oooh, encryption, encryption which they'll open up for governments to look at upon demand. I would feel absolutely confident in using encryption which can be bypassed like it wasn't there.
I mean, if it's encrypted it must be secure and good, right?
No, because since they can (and do) bypass it, their encryption is utterly useless. They've already demonstrated they can and will obviate your encryption.
So, I ask again, why is BBM so important? Because your argument for encryption is garbage when they can step around that.
It depends on if these new apps can join a BES (blackberry enterprise server) BBM system. In that mode, the encryption is maintained privately on the server, not by BB, Inc. and therefore it is theoretically secure. I say theoretically since there is still no guarantee that there is not a backdoor present which allows for snooping of intercepted messages anyway...
So following that argument, the crosspollinatted weeds that are roundup resistant are owned by Monsanto and Monsanto is then responsible for any loss of income any farmer gets from those weeds reducing his crop yeild by stealing nutrients or sunlight. Monsanto you are in deep shit now.
Maybe, except the patent on Roundup itself expired back in 2000 so they don't technically "own" the process for making roundup resistant weeds...
He is allowed to purchase any seeds he wants. As I understand it, he chose to buy seeds already "'Roundup' resistant" but not pay the Monsanto price to keep his maintenance costs down and profits up, rather than purchasing non-genetically enhanced seeds which require more maintenance dollars on his part.
Whether or not Monsanto should be doing this is moot; they are following the rules of the game, and fiercely (almost insanely, IMO) going after any infringement at all. They will continue to do this until the rules change.
Unfortunately, getting the rules changed is a very, very tough row to hoe and I do not expect to see it happen in my (or my grand-kid's) lifetime.
This is the world we have made.
11 lawsuits (Monsanto's number) in 19 years is "almost insanely"? You must really have heart palpitations about the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits...
If he gets any cross pollination from other farmers using monsanto seeds, he'll get sued again. And he will lose. Farmers always lose these lawsuits where their fields got cross-pollinated by patented genes.
I frequently hear this claim, and I frequently hear the other side declare that it's bullshit. Neither side actually cites a court case. Does this actually happen, or not?
GIYF. That, and Monsanto puts a partial list of lawsuits on their own website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx which would be a good place to start from, for their side of the story. For the other side of the story, you can find farmers ranting about Monsanto pretty much everywhere on the internet.
The hang up comes when a farmer replants cross-pollinated seeds, and then intentionally roundup's the results so he has a crop of new 100% roundup-ready seeds to replant, even though he never bought seeds from monsanto to begin with. Farmers who just let the cross pollination go unchecked and never use roundup anyway are fine, monsanto would have to have probable cause (depending on who you ask) and test a LOT of seed to find the ones that are roundup-ready.
And i suggested that non-solid, intricately concave objects don't work well as molds/forms for casting. You are welcome to try, but it's a pretty bad idea.
It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.
It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.
You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).
You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.
Just saying.
3d printing is a tad more complicated; the printed objects aren't solid, they can have intricate internal structures. To do it all from molds you basically need to machine every internal piece anyway, which would be easier if you didn't even bother to start with a 3d printed version in the first place (just start with designs for actual guns).
The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?
It's the State Department's export controls rules that they are afoul of; it's unclear exactly how the DoD is involved, if at all.
Intel sold basically 0 tablet CPUs
Yes, yes, we know the Surface Pro sales have been disappointing.
So I wonder what went wrong at McAfee afterwards.
He, against all odds, built a company of very good programmers who produced a very good product. When it comes to security, trust is everything, and the brand built a lot of trust out there. Some vultures came along, bought him out (that was what went wrong, if you had to pick a moment) and then started cashing in all the trust by turning McAfee antivirus into a money machine, not bothering with conventionally ethical business practices or even keeping decent coders around.