You have it backwards. Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him. They vowed to make him a one-term President, no matter what it took. They burned up countless days on the legislative calendar, trying dozens and dozens of times to repeal Obamacare. They shut the government down over a pointless spending-limit dispute that cost the country billions of dollars.
Let's not bullshit here. This is about Trump's effort to get rid of every single thing Obama ever did.
This.
Trump is irked by anything that has Obama's name on it. It's like he gets up every morning and has to walk past a golden multi-storey edifice named "Obama Tower." His insecurity really does run that deep.
You include management when you mention professional attitude being about more than just money and making an effort correct?
Well sort of, but not really. Obviously management has an interest in having professionals who do their jobs well. But so do the members of a profession, because it adds to the inherent value of what they do. They can market themselves as highly competent practitioners who can be counted on to do the job right.
Companies do not own professions. Their practitioners do.
Technically, a "professional" is someone who gets paid for their work, nothing more or less. You're using "professional" in the slang sense.
A professional is also someone who is worth what they get paid. A professional attitude is not just about being in it for the money -- it's also about making an effort to do one's job well.
For at least the past 6 decades in the US, the term "liberal" has had a radically-different meaning to the old traditional "liberal" as in "libertarian" meaning.
Only in the fantasies of right-wingers who strive to redefine anything to the left of them to be double-plus ungood. Attempting to change what people think words mean is the first step in mind-control.
It's clear from your sig that you have an obsession with this very topic. You need to get out more.
All of them came to the Gnu/Linux party after the OS had established itself as a viable competitor in the market -- with the possible exception of Red Hat and SuSE, which started small and grew along side Gnu/Linux. But one can argue that they have benefited more from the Linux movement than the other way around (not to begrudge their success.)
Bob Young, the founder of Red Hat, was once asked (around the time of their IPO) whether he wanted to make Red Hat as big as Microsoft. His reply: "No, I want to make Microsoft as small as Red Hat." Of course, Red Hat got bigger, but not as big as Microsoft. But IMHO, not as "big" as Gnu/Linux either.
Fingers crossed with you. But to address the points you raised:
1) You must have apps people want.
They are addressing that. From another post I made on this story:
- they are offering developer's kits for a donation of $299, to be delivered June 2018 - their PureOS platform will ship initially with basic apps (phone, email, messaging, voice, camera, browsing) with others to follow - they will offer a secure collection of apps, as part of the Matrix ecosystem - they have added a stretch-goal to support Android apps in an isolation layer
An obvious goal will be the necessity to somehow support Android/Google apps. And an emulation/isolation layer to do so is certainly technologically possible.
See above re "stretch" goals.
It is even exciting to think about a device that might run quality non-Android Linux apps AND run Android apps in an isolated environment, denying it access to personal stuff, and/or feeding it fake data when wanted.
Check. Again, see above. Per the link in TFS, the phone "[r]uns PureOS by default, can run most GNU+Linux distributions." The openness in the dev environment ensures that the kind of privacy and security you're talking about can be baked in.
But there are a lot of legal and monopolistic minefields in trying to do so.
Such as?
And trying to keep it compatible over time would be a big, big hurdle; especially on a tight budget with little resources.
Well, Gnu/Linux has fared rather well under similar circumstances.
Calm the f*** down. "Free" has two meanings: (1) no cost, and (2) no restrictions. "Freedom" (in the latter sense) is not "free" (in the former sense.)
You're a bit hasty, expecting an app store for a phone that hasn't even shipped yet. But if you examine the link in TFA, you'll see the following:
- they are offering developer's kits for a donation of $299, to be delivered June 2018 - their PureOS platform will ship initially with basic apps (phone, email, messaging, voice, camera, browsing) with others to follow - they will offer a secure collection of apps, as part of the Matrix ecosystem - they have added a stretch-goal to support Android apps in an isolation layer
You want a real kicker? The US is one of only 2 countries that taxes someone based on citizenship regardless of where they reside. So as a US citizen if you become a resident of Canada you'll pay taxes in Canada AND you have to file a tax return to the US and may be taxed by the US..don't believe me google it.
Okay, stop and take a deep breath.
There. Better? Okay.
Countries may tax their citizens even if they are nonresident. However... practically every country in the world has a tax treaty with every other country in the world -- even countries who aren't particularly fond of each other. These treaties aim to eliminate double-taxation because, duh, that's just not fair and everybody realizes it.
So how does it work? IANA tax accountant, but I have had experience with filing returns in two countries in the same tax year. The basic idea is that Country A (say) where the income is sourced, gets first dibs on taxation. After that, Country B may tax that income, but the filer may claim tax paid in Country A as a credit against taxes due for that income. (Typically, the country where the income is sourced is also the country where the taxpayer resides, but that's not always the case.) If the tax rates in Country A are higher than in Country B, then the filer may owe no tax at all in Country B on the income earned in Country A.
There are other potentially complex issues regarding taxation of interest and capital gains, but the basic idea is the same: the treaty determines who gets the first tax-bite, and after that, any taxes paid to one country can be claimed as a credit against taxes owed in another.
So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?
I suppose. But here's the problem with your plan:
1. The US Constitution stipulates that the individual states are responsible for keeping birth records. 2. The state of Hawaii says that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. 3. THE END.
I'm not an expert, but my thoughts, for what they're worth: laws governing a crime are applied at the location of the crime, unless an individual has diplomatic immunity. (For that case, I dunno.)
If someone commits a crime in country A and flees to country B, there may (or may not) be extradition treaties between these countries that will permit the person to be brought to trial. Extradition is non-trivial, and typically involves judicial reviews in the country where the accused is apprehended. So it may happen, or not.
turn it around. If I, US citizen, move to Canada, I get the distint honor of paying Canada income tax, VAT/GST on all my purchases, and cannot participate in Canada's health care system?
Canadian expat here.
Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.
BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.
At least you CAN get US social security, even as a Canadian citizen working in the US.
The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.
Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?
If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.
But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.
Really? So you are saying that as a Permanent Resident Canadian, not only am I not allowed to vote, thought I'm taxed (which is REAL rich given the whole 'no taxation without representation' mantra of how the US SUPPOSEDLY started its revolution), but now you're saying I can't give any money to any group trying to influence a US election of any kind?
That's different. A Permanent Resident is not a US citizens, but is a US person. US persons cannot vote, but they can donate money and time to US political campaigns. They can even assist in some ways at polling places.
I should have specified that nonresident foreign nationals are prohibited by law from donating to, or participating in, US election campaigns.
The "ultimate" solution, [Hoffman] says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within AI that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
So, the ultimate solution for the dangers of AI is... more AI?
Well okay, maybe. But this argument does sound familiar. I don't remember where, but it has been applied to AI... and guns.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it backwards. Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him. They vowed to make him a one-term President, no matter what it took. They burned up countless days on the legislative calendar, trying dozens and dozens of times to repeal Obamacare. They shut the government down over a pointless spending-limit dispute that cost the country billions of dollars.
As for Obama being a "king with a pen" --- try again. The number of executive orders he signed was not at all remarkable, compared to his predecessors.
Let's not bullshit here. This is about Trump's effort to get rid of every single thing Obama ever did.
This.
Trump is irked by anything that has Obama's name on it. It's like he gets up every morning and has to walk past a golden multi-storey edifice named "Obama Tower." His insecurity really does run that deep.
You include management when you mention professional attitude being about more than just money and making an effort correct?
Well sort of, but not really. Obviously management has an interest in having professionals who do their jobs well. But so do the members of a profession, because it adds to the inherent value of what they do. They can market themselves as highly competent practitioners who can be counted on to do the job right.
Companies do not own professions. Their practitioners do.
Technically, a "professional" is someone who gets paid for their work, nothing more or less. You're using "professional" in the slang sense.
A professional is also someone who is worth what they get paid. A professional attitude is not just about being in it for the money -- it's also about making an effort to do one's job well.
I just had a thought...
With a LIDAR sensor-array loaded with frickin' lasers on its roof, wouldn't a cool name for their self-driving car be the Google Shark?
Naaah...
Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. Thanks for the improvement.
Internet Rule 34. That is all.
For at least the past 6 decades in the US, the term "liberal" has had a radically-different meaning to the old traditional "liberal" as in "libertarian" meaning.
Only in the fantasies of right-wingers who strive to redefine anything to the left of them to be double-plus ungood. Attempting to change what people think words mean is the first step in mind-control.
It's clear from your sig that you have an obsession with this very topic. You need to get out more.
Newsweek is telling us about some religious wacko who claims that the world will end in 4 (four) days !
FTFY. Interesting article, though. That guy is truly unhinged.
All of them came to the Gnu/Linux party after the OS had established itself as a viable competitor in the market -- with the possible exception of Red Hat and SuSE, which started small and grew along side Gnu/Linux. But one can argue that they have benefited more from the Linux movement than the other way around (not to begrudge their success.)
Bob Young, the founder of Red Hat, was once asked (around the time of their IPO) whether he wanted to make Red Hat as big as Microsoft. His reply: "No, I want to make Microsoft as small as Red Hat." Of course, Red Hat got bigger, but not as big as Microsoft. But IMHO, not as "big" as Gnu/Linux either.
Fingers crossed with you. But to address the points you raised:
1) You must have apps people want.
They are addressing that. From another post I made on this story:
- they are offering developer's kits for a donation of $299, to be delivered June 2018
- their PureOS platform will ship initially with basic apps (phone, email, messaging, voice, camera, browsing) with others to follow
- they will offer a secure collection of apps, as part of the Matrix ecosystem
- they have added a stretch-goal to support Android apps in an isolation layer
An obvious goal will be the necessity to somehow support Android/Google apps. And an emulation/isolation layer to do so is certainly technologically possible.
See above re "stretch" goals.
It is even exciting to think about a device that might run quality non-Android Linux apps AND run Android apps in an isolated environment, denying it access to personal stuff, and/or feeding it fake data when wanted.
Check. Again, see above. Per the link in TFS, the phone "[r]uns PureOS by default, can run most GNU+Linux distributions." The openness in the dev environment ensures that the kind of privacy and security you're talking about can be baked in.
But there are a lot of legal and monopolistic minefields in trying to do so.
Such as?
And trying to keep it compatible over time would be a big, big hurdle; especially on a tight budget with little resources.
Well, Gnu/Linux has fared rather well under similar circumstances.
Calm the f*** down. "Free" has two meanings: (1) no cost, and (2) no restrictions. "Freedom" (in the latter sense) is not "free" (in the former sense.)
Maybe not Android-level market penetration (at first) but they do have a stretch-goal to support Android apps in an isolation layer.
+1000 Awesome.
You're a bit hasty, expecting an app store for a phone that hasn't even shipped yet. But if you examine the link in TFA, you'll see the following:
- they are offering developer's kits for a donation of $299, to be delivered June 2018
- their PureOS platform will ship initially with basic apps (phone, email, messaging, voice, camera, browsing) with others to follow
- they will offer a secure collection of apps, as part of the Matrix ecosystem
- they have added a stretch-goal to support Android apps in an isolation layer
You want a real kicker? The US is one of only 2 countries that taxes someone based on citizenship regardless of where they reside. So as a US citizen if you become a resident of Canada you'll pay taxes in Canada AND you have to file a tax return to the US and may be taxed by the US..don't believe me google it.
Okay, stop and take a deep breath.
There. Better? Okay.
Countries may tax their citizens even if they are nonresident. However... practically every country in the world has a tax treaty with every other country in the world -- even countries who aren't particularly fond of each other. These treaties aim to eliminate double-taxation because, duh, that's just not fair and everybody realizes it.
So how does it work? IANA tax accountant, but I have had experience with filing returns in two countries in the same tax year. The basic idea is that Country A (say) where the income is sourced, gets first dibs on taxation. After that, Country B may tax that income, but the filer may claim tax paid in Country A as a credit against taxes due for that income. (Typically, the country where the income is sourced is also the country where the taxpayer resides, but that's not always the case.) If the tax rates in Country A are higher than in Country B, then the filer may owe no tax at all in Country B on the income earned in Country A.
There are other potentially complex issues regarding taxation of interest and capital gains, but the basic idea is the same: the treaty determines who gets the first tax-bite, and after that, any taxes paid to one country can be claimed as a credit against taxes owed in another.
So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?
I suppose. But here's the problem with your plan:
1. The US Constitution stipulates that the individual states are responsible for keeping birth records.
2. The state of Hawaii says that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
3. THE END.
"Non-territorial?" I think you're right, mostly.
I'm not an expert, but my thoughts, for what they're worth: laws governing a crime are applied at the location of the crime, unless an individual has diplomatic immunity. (For that case, I dunno.)
If someone commits a crime in country A and flees to country B, there may (or may not) be extradition treaties between these countries that will permit the person to be brought to trial. Extradition is non-trivial, and typically involves judicial reviews in the country where the accused is apprehended. So it may happen, or not.
turn it around. If I, US citizen, move to Canada, I get the distint honor of paying Canada income tax, VAT/GST on all my purchases, and cannot participate in Canada's health care system?
Canadian expat here.
Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.
BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.
At least you CAN get US social security, even as a Canadian citizen working in the US.
The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.
Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?
If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.
But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.
Really? So you are saying that as a Permanent Resident Canadian, not only am I not allowed to vote, thought I'm taxed (which is REAL rich given the whole 'no taxation without representation' mantra of how the US SUPPOSEDLY started its revolution), but now you're saying I can't give any money to any group trying to influence a US election of any kind?
That's different. A Permanent Resident is not a US citizens, but is a US person. US persons cannot vote, but they can donate money and time to US political campaigns. They can even assist in some ways at polling places.
I should have specified that nonresident foreign nationals are prohibited by law from donating to, or participating in, US election campaigns.
It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.
The "ultimate" solution, [Hoffman] says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within AI that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
So, the ultimate solution for the dangers of AI is ... more AI?
Well okay, maybe. But this argument does sound familiar. I don't remember where, but it has been applied to AI ... and guns.
Part of its wave-function is on usenet, so Godwin's Law does apply. And it doesn't. Actually I'm not sure. I'll ask my cat, after I open her box.
ZOMG. A quantum-Godwin post. And I lived to see it.