Mostly, they're refusing to pay their taxes because they're cheap bastards.
You're implying that they are evading taxes they they owe.
I suspect it is more likely they are using legal tax avoidance options that won't land them in trouble.
Or are you suggesting that people and companies should just pay more than they owe? Perhaps you should start? The Treasury Dept will gladly accept your check.
Now there you go, writing a reasonable and considered reply... What are you doing on Slashdot?:)
All fair points, I have nothing to add, other than I could run around in circles all day long with the subject...
I get both sides, perhaps because I'm a business owner and have employed many people. More than once I've had employees tell me what I can and cannot do.
Sigh... I always tell them, "feel free to quit and go start your own business and do it better, but as long as this one is mine, we'll do it my way."
I do have strong feelings that my personal business is largely mine to run how I see fit, within reason of course (I can't enslave employees of course, that is absurd). But it is a two way street, they can quit any time and I can fire them at any time.
The good employees, I prefer to pay well and treat nicely, for they are hard to replace. The poor employees? Meh, they can go work for the competition.:)
On the other hand, it is hard for people to compete in a fair and open marketplace when companies are doing backroom deals to block off options, so I don't think that is right either.
So I see the employee side of the issue here, but I also see what the companies were trying to accomplish.
Employment law is strange sometimes... and please don't get me started on unions...:)
What you have is a license to use that space, temporary and revocable.
No, I don't... The FAA doesn't issue pilots licenses, they issue pilot certificates... They never expire, they are good for life...
It might not sound like a big difference, but it really is.
Now they can revoke a certificate, there is a process for that of course, but it isn't a licence.
other people's unused, idle private property
If the air above your land was private property, then it would be trespassing to fly through it. You may not have used the word trespass, but other people have in regard to drones.
Many people in many similar stories posted on Slashdot have said, "you can't fly your drone over my house, that is my property".
Yea, they can, and no, it isn't... Not until you build something there.:)
:) Yea, but if you start doing it a lot, the government will step in.
As well they should, if 50,000 people start doing it, it becomes a public safety issue.
While I don't like how long the FAA is taking to get some drone rules into place, they are needed. We will need a certification process for drone pilots and an airworthiness standard for drones themselves.
Or would you prefer they wait until people start dying?:)
Most of the current FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood, someone died, someone crashed, and a new rule was written. Aviation is quite safe today because of that.
Because if you fine an individual 3 million dollars and his/her net worth is only $30,000, they just declare bankruptcy and move on with life.
Or not...
But if you fine Apple into bankruptcy, you harm much more than just a few people within the company, you harm the economy, thousands of innocent workers, and many people related to the business who had nothing to do with it...
It sounds so simple to just say, "fine, we'll take away their money, or their patents, or something..."
But when the rubber meets the road, the law of unintended consequences roars its ugly head and then you're very sorry you ever did it.
Let me ask you a question... What is "flight space"? That is an interesting term.
There is "airspace", which is the air above the land, and generally starts at the ground and goes up from there.
Let me put this another way.
Do you have the right to put up a 199ft tall tower on your land? Generally yes, absent any local zoning laws.
Do you have the right to put up a 2,000ft tall tower on your land? Generally yes, absent any local zoning laws.
However, there are laws about how it must be marked and reported so that it can be added to the flight charts, and it must be lit and the fines for not having it lit can be quite expensive.
But that isn't what I was saying, or I wasn't trying to say.
I suspect we got off on a tangent...
Your right to build up into the sky isn't what I was talking about. I was replying to someone who claimed that someone flying overhead was "trespassing". They are not.
If I fly over your house at 200ft above the ground, I might be causing a hazard, I might be a public nuscisance, but I am not trespassing in your private airspace.
The original poster was trying to imply that the air above their propert was personal property. It isn't. It is more shared common use space.
I can fly through it and I don't require permission from anyone but the FAA.
You can build in it, and you don't require permission from anyone but your local city or county government.
No, it is spoken like someone who accepts reality and human nature.
Parents beat their children all the time. Some cultures accept this, others do not.
It used to be acceptable in the US, it has largely become not acceptable anymore.
So does this mean it doesn't happen? Of course not, parents can do whatever they want, they are free human beings. You can try and stop them, that is what child protective services is for. You can call them, if they find abused children they have the power to remove them from the home. This power is granted to them by people like you and me, backed up by the sheriffs dept who will use force if needed to back up our will.
Because frankly, I don't want it to happen, so I will try and stop it via the laws we pass and by paying my taxes to fund CPS and the law enforcement agencies who will protect kids when their own parents abuse them.
But none of that removes the parents right to abuse their kids. It just means that other people have the right to remove their ability to be parents.
Similar articles were posted in similar numbers after Snowden as well.
Nothing has changed and everyone has moved on.
When a million people march on Washington, then I'll believe the people care.
Look at the civil rights movement, that was a long time coming, but clearly large numbers of people cared and they changed the country, but it took a lot more than 186 articles linked from Google to do it.
A thousand people protesting is news... For a day or two...
Yes, that could work, expect that getting all states to agree would be a challenge.:)
Many states don't get along all that well and have very different political viewpoints.
Look at Tesla, they were going to be offered a big package to build their gigabattey factory in CA, but the state legislature didn't act on it before recess, so they took Nevada up on their offer.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be happy, but most people would not.
Dell and HP sell to "most people", not you.
Dell has tried to sell consumer Linux boxes several times in the past 10 years, it has failed each time.
And what is the problem?
Microsoft said to Dell:
You can pay $35 for every copy of Windows, so long as you pay for every single machine that goes out the door.
Or
You can pay $40 for every copy of Windows, and only have to pay for each machine that actually comes with Windows.
What would you have picked if you were Dell in the 90's?
If all you want is a web browser, a full PC is massive overkill.
If you're buying a PC, it needs to do far more than run a web browser.
Most people do... In fact, it might shock you... The majority of purchases are still done with cash, not plastic.
My phone comes with an operating system.
As does my motherboard, have you seen how complex some BIOSes are these days? A few will let you network and browse the web.
Oh, how nice that sounds... Shame it doesn't work that way...
Grandma wants to use Office, or Quicken, or her favorite photo editing program.
Oh wait, none of them run on Linux.
Oh darn...
And no, she doesn't want to have to change programs just because the OS changes.
Oh, don't misunderstand me, I do care...
But until a large number of people care, my caring doesn't change anything...
And I don't get any sense at all that most people care...
No, I care, but there isn't anything I can do about it...
Getting upset about something I can't do anything about is a waste of energy...
Or were you planning to revolt? Let me know how that goes...
And if you want to put a 1TB RAM drive into a server?
Frankly, the speed of modern RAM makes SSDs look slow, there is something to be said for ponying up the money for that much RAM (or more)
Well... you'd make SOME of the US employees more attractive, some you'd make less attractive. :)
As far as the laws go, I understand your point, and it is a reasonable one.
So is the one about the laws not mattering if all the jobs go overseas.
It is an interesting situation, to be sure...
Mostly, they're refusing to pay their taxes because they're cheap bastards.
You're implying that they are evading taxes they they owe.
I suspect it is more likely they are using legal tax avoidance options that won't land them in trouble.
Or are you suggesting that people and companies should just pay more than they owe? Perhaps you should start? The Treasury Dept will gladly accept your check.
Now there you go, writing a reasonable and considered reply... What are you doing on Slashdot? :)
All fair points, I have nothing to add, other than I could run around in circles all day long with the subject...
I get both sides, perhaps because I'm a business owner and have employed many people. More than once I've had employees tell me what I can and cannot do.
Sigh... I always tell them, "feel free to quit and go start your own business and do it better, but as long as this one is mine, we'll do it my way."
I do have strong feelings that my personal business is largely mine to run how I see fit, within reason of course (I can't enslave employees of course, that is absurd). But it is a two way street, they can quit any time and I can fire them at any time.
The good employees, I prefer to pay well and treat nicely, for they are hard to replace. The poor employees? Meh, they can go work for the competition. :)
On the other hand, it is hard for people to compete in a fair and open marketplace when companies are doing backroom deals to block off options, so I don't think that is right either.
So I see the employee side of the issue here, but I also see what the companies were trying to accomplish.
Employment law is strange sometimes... and please don't get me started on unions... :)
What you have is a license to use that space, temporary and revocable.
No, I don't... The FAA doesn't issue pilots licenses, they issue pilot certificates... They never expire, they are good for life...
It might not sound like a big difference, but it really is.
Now they can revoke a certificate, there is a process for that of course, but it isn't a licence.
other people's unused, idle private property
If the air above your land was private property, then it would be trespassing to fly through it. You may not have used the word trespass, but other people have in regard to drones.
Many people in many similar stories posted on Slashdot have said, "you can't fly your drone over my house, that is my property".
Yea, they can, and no, it isn't... Not until you build something there. :)
Someone should tell the FAA to go fly a kite!
:) Yea, but if you start doing it a lot, the government will step in.
As well they should, if 50,000 people start doing it, it becomes a public safety issue.
While I don't like how long the FAA is taking to get some drone rules into place, they are needed. We will need a certification process for drone pilots and an airworthiness standard for drones themselves.
Or would you prefer they wait until people start dying? :)
Most of the current FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood, someone died, someone crashed, and a new rule was written. Aviation is quite safe today because of that.
But that isn't what is happening in this case...
This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case brought by regulators...
The companies have not admitted anything, they are offering to settle without admitting wrongdoing.
Because if you fine an individual 3 million dollars and his/her net worth is only $30,000, they just declare bankruptcy and move on with life.
Or not...
But if you fine Apple into bankruptcy, you harm much more than just a few people within the company, you harm the economy, thousands of innocent workers, and many people related to the business who had nothing to do with it...
It sounds so simple to just say, "fine, we'll take away their money, or their patents, or something..."
But when the rubber meets the road, the law of unintended consequences roars its ugly head and then you're very sorry you ever did it.
Yes, my implied point was that perhaps we should take a few hundred million from the military and give it to NASA. :)
I see what you are saying...
Let me ask you a question... What is "flight space"? That is an interesting term.
There is "airspace", which is the air above the land, and generally starts at the ground and goes up from there.
Let me put this another way.
Do you have the right to put up a 199ft tall tower on your land? Generally yes, absent any local zoning laws.
Do you have the right to put up a 2,000ft tall tower on your land? Generally yes, absent any local zoning laws.
However, there are laws about how it must be marked and reported so that it can be added to the flight charts, and it must be lit and the fines for not having it lit can be quite expensive.
But that isn't what I was saying, or I wasn't trying to say.
I suspect we got off on a tangent...
Your right to build up into the sky isn't what I was talking about. I was replying to someone who claimed that someone flying overhead was "trespassing". They are not.
If I fly over your house at 200ft above the ground, I might be causing a hazard, I might be a public nuscisance, but I am not trespassing in your private airspace.
The original poster was trying to imply that the air above their propert was personal property. It isn't. It is more shared common use space.
I can fly through it and I don't require permission from anyone but the FAA.
You can build in it, and you don't require permission from anyone but your local city or county government.
Does that make more sense?
No, it is spoken like someone who accepts reality and human nature.
Parents beat their children all the time. Some cultures accept this, others do not.
It used to be acceptable in the US, it has largely become not acceptable anymore.
So does this mean it doesn't happen? Of course not, parents can do whatever they want, they are free human beings. You can try and stop them, that is what child protective services is for. You can call them, if they find abused children they have the power to remove them from the home. This power is granted to them by people like you and me, backed up by the sheriffs dept who will use force if needed to back up our will.
Because frankly, I don't want it to happen, so I will try and stop it via the laws we pass and by paying my taxes to fund CPS and the law enforcement agencies who will protect kids when their own parents abuse them.
But none of that removes the parents right to abuse their kids. It just means that other people have the right to remove their ability to be parents.
This is a civil case, not a criminal one.
Or do you want to throw out the law and just be a dictatorship?
To do what you suggest requires that an existing law be broken, someone be brought to trial, and be convicted by a jury of his/her peers.
The restitution the plaintiff are seeking cannot include what you're asking.
Yes, they are telling you where you can't work.
I said that no one can tell you where you must work.
The OP above me said that to give the CEOs a taste of their own medicine, they should be forced to work there for several years.
All true... I actually agree with much of what you said...
Allow me to rephrase...
People don't care enough to march on Washington by the millions. Clearly change can happen, look at the civil rights movement. Look at suffrage..
It does happen, but it takes something bigger than this to change it.
Do I think these companies are right? No, I don't. But my thinking that doesn't mean much if I'm not out protesting.
Similar articles were posted in similar numbers after Snowden as well.
Nothing has changed and everyone has moved on.
When a million people march on Washington, then I'll believe the people care.
Look at the civil rights movement, that was a long time coming, but clearly large numbers of people cared and they changed the country, but it took a lot more than 186 articles linked from Google to do it.
A thousand people protesting is news... For a day or two...
A million people protesting is a movement.
Yea, kinda like that...
After all, the American Revolution didn't happen for no reason, the English King was so abusive for so long, it's new puppy did just that.
One day, it will happen again. It may or may not be in our lifetimes, but the status quo won't last forever.
Yes, that could work, expect that getting all states to agree would be a challenge. :)
Many states don't get along all that well and have very different political viewpoints.
Look at Tesla, they were going to be offered a big package to build their gigabattey factory in CA, but the state legislature didn't act on it before recess, so they took Nevada up on their offer.