All property owners pay based on their date of purchase, which is entirely fair.
I pay five times what my neighbor pays in property tax for the same model simply because my neighbor bought in 1977 and I bought in 2010. Prop 13 is good for older people who have been here a while but not so good for people trying to buy their first home.
How is it not so good for buyers? It seems buyers would be paying taxes based on a current assessment with or without prop 13? In other words prop 13 seems irrelevant to that initial assessment and tax rate, that it only affects increases not the initial rate.
The visibility doesn't make it so bugs don't exist. It makes them more likely to be found. This one existed and was found.
After two years in the wild. And apparently *not* by eyeballs on source code. Proprietary or open seems irrelevant to this discovery.
"“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” Chartier said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”" http://readwrite.com/2014/04/1...
The quote is "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." That's a clear admission that open software, like all other software, contains bugs; that's why you want the many eyeballs. Any claim otherwise is a symptom of not understanding plain English. Eric's whole point was that the bugs in open software will be found and fixed faster than the bugs in other software, due to the population of interested people who will study it, looking for the bugs.
Perhaps it is not being stated clearly but the point that you are missing is the fact that this bug in some of the most critical network software in use had been around for 2 years. This fact demonstrates the hyperbole of the quote. Its a well crafted quote, illustrates a concept well, but people read way too much into it. Few FOSS users are developers, few developers are qualified readers. Eyeballs are a plus, but not a panacea. The gap between proprietary and open exists but it is exaggerated.
A second and more important fact is that the bug was not discovered by eyeballs on source code. The techniques used seem to be the same applied to proprietary closed source code.
"“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” Chartier said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”" http://readwrite.com/2014/04/1...
Nothing in that quote implies (to anyone with reasonable understanding of English and basic logic) that open software doesn't have bugs.
Ah, I missed WD. I thought the summary was describing the Seagate drive as being filled with He. Gotta stop that skimming through torrents of information... oh wait, that's a different article.
My understanding is that this is treading on very dangerous grounds with respect to FAA guidelines.
A "share" of the cost includes all expenses of the flight. Rental, fuel, etc. The pilot and passenger must each pay half of total expenses.
The passenger can have no influence on the destination. If the pilot is flying from A to B and the passenger tags along, OK. But if the pilot just wants hours and goes to B because the passenger needs to go there then I think there is an FAA regulations problem and the FAA will consider the flight commercial.
That said I am not a lawyer nor a FAA guidelines expert. All I know is what my instructor told me many years ago in ground school. "The person showing you their FAA ID is never ever there to help you. Never hand your license to the FAA official to help them read / inspect it, that can be considered surrendering your license if the FAA official wishes to interpret the act as such. Keep the license in your hand and move it closer to their face if they are having a hard time reading it, pull it away if they reach for it. If they ask for it tell them you will be handing it to your attorney and they can speak with him/her."
access to unfiltered information will make people THINK! who would have thought?:)
Unfiltered information is not necessarily correct information. A peer reviewed scientific journal is an example of filtering. Filtering is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on the who and why of the filtering.
People sometimes think more emotionally than critically, are easy to deceive. The anti-vaccine movement grew with the internet too.
While the number of apps downloaded is coming from 3rd parties we are still left with Google's financial reports indicating $900M paid to developers compared to Apple's claim of $5,000M paid to developers.
Number of downloads per app, Android 60,000 and iOS 40,000.
Average revenue per download, Android $0.01875 and iOS $0.10.
Average revenue per app, Android $1,125 and iOS $4,000.
Putting Linux on the existing hardware would also make more sense...
Perhaps for PC desktops but for PC laptops you are much more likely to have glitchy or unsupported hardware of some sort, ex. wifi.
And if Chrome doesn't work out you can install a full Linux on the chromebooks and you will have a complete and working set of drivers, there is a Linux under that Chrome.
Or they could just hire some kids to load Linux -- I could load Linux on a lot of old computers with a locked down linux and browser. The Chromebooks will be $200 per.
A year ago I bought an Acer C7 Chromebook and installed Linux on it. Its my first Linux laptop that has a complete and working set of drivers. Of all the previous PC laptops that I have had and converted to Linux upon their retirement, they were always glitchy in one way or another, or lacked drivers.
I have had much better luck with desktops but I tended to build my own and tended to go with well regarded parts.
That said, for US$200 the Acer C7 is a pretty good Linux laptop for the money. The screen and trackpad may be nothing special but thats acceptable given the price IMHO.
Each and every ledger entry has a cost basis. For incoming coins the new coins have a value based on the time they were received. The old coins returning to you based on when they were new. For outgoing coins (not including those coming back) it would probably be like other accounting practices where a first in first out (FIFO) system or a last in first out (LIFO) system is used. In either case the basis of the outgoing coins are known.
The odd thing would seem to be that as the outgoing coins are spent its necessary to determine if a gain (coins being paid at a price higher than basis) or a loss (coins being paid at a price lower than basis) is being recognized.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, its late, hopefully the point gets across.
Is all this a royal pain in the ass, yes. But basis, gains and losses seem perfectly calculable.
It is not a law, it is just a guidance, that is, their current interpretation of the law. It can change easily.
And until changes are made they will fine you and apply penalties if you deviate from their guidance. Their interpretation is not optional, it carries weight until a court or congress says otherwise.
It seems that miners need a daily log of the coins mined and the closing prices on an acceptable exchange. Each day's coins may have their own basis, the number mined multiplied by the closing price on the exchange. This basic seems to be counted as income.
Equipment and electricity are probably not factored into the basis. They are most likely a separate deduction.
The LAPD would only need to state that the images were captured with the intent of validating registration tags. Police have the right to look at a plate's registration tag when the vehicle is on a public road, and even stop you and ticket you if it is out of date. This could be automated and a ticket sent in the mail.
Computer viruses predated the internet and worked across sneaker nets. Code on a floppy can be infected. A floppy can contain data crafted to overrun buffers and execute code, etc. The internet just simplifies the process, automates it.
According to the article Apple is asking for court documents. Although its not clear if they have been doing so from the initial contact. This probably had to work it way up a few levels of customer support to get to someone who knew what should be done. Lower levels probably only know to tell people to reset their password and check their email.
LMOL yeah it's not like Apple could not get the family to sign off on that. Apple does not need the court to do that! Morons.
So in your opinion the probate court system for executing a will is optional? Businesses are free to transfer accounts to people without court approval, including accounts that have monetary value or are linked to credit cards?
Also, do you not understand the security vulnerability if Apple just starts taking people's word for it with respect to resetting passwords on Apple IDs?
Christ have you read any of this thread or even TFA? It's in England there is no probate!
From wiki:
"A representative example of a complete probate clause, from the 14th century (or earlier) onwards...
"This will was proved at London before the worshipful Sir Richard Raines, knight, Doctor of Laws, Master Keeper or Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, lawfully constituted, on the twenty third day of the month of June in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety seven, by the oath of Mary Bathurst, relict and executrix named in the said will, to whom administration was granted of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of the said deceased, sworn on the holy Gospel of God to well and faithfully administer the same. It has been examined"."
"Probate is a legal document. Receipt of probate is the first step in the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person, resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under a will. A probate court (surrogate court) decides the legal validity of a testator's will and grants its approval by granting probate to the executor."
In short, Apple seems to want to see the court document stating that the person contacting Apple is indeed the executor of the will.
Slashdot Mirror
I pay five times what my neighbor pays in property tax for the same model simply because my neighbor bought in 1977 and I bought in 2010. Prop 13 is good for older people who have been here a while but not so good for people trying to buy their first home.
How is it not so good for buyers? It seems buyers would be paying taxes based on a current assessment with or without prop 13? In other words prop 13 seems irrelevant to that initial assessment and tax rate, that it only affects increases not the initial rate.
The visibility doesn't make it so bugs don't exist. It makes them more likely to be found. This one existed and was found.
After two years in the wild. And apparently *not* by eyeballs on source code. Proprietary or open seems irrelevant to this discovery.
"“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” Chartier said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”"
http://readwrite.com/2014/04/1...
The quote is "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." That's a clear admission that open software, like all other software, contains bugs; that's why you want the many eyeballs. Any claim otherwise is a symptom of not understanding plain English. Eric's whole point was that the bugs in open software will be found and fixed faster than the bugs in other software, due to the population of interested people who will study it, looking for the bugs.
Perhaps it is not being stated clearly but the point that you are missing is the fact that this bug in some of the most critical network software in use had been around for 2 years. This fact demonstrates the hyperbole of the quote. Its a well crafted quote, illustrates a concept well, but people read way too much into it. Few FOSS users are developers, few developers are qualified readers. Eyeballs are a plus, but not a panacea. The gap between proprietary and open exists but it is exaggerated.
A second and more important fact is that the bug was not discovered by eyeballs on source code. The techniques used seem to be the same applied to proprietary closed source code.
"“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” Chartier said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”"
http://readwrite.com/2014/04/1...
Nothing in that quote implies (to anyone with reasonable understanding of English and basic logic) that open software doesn't have bugs.
Straw man.
Ah, I missed WD. I thought the summary was describing the Seagate drive as being filled with He. Gotta stop that skimming through torrents of information ... oh wait, that's a different article.
Whoa, the summary is orders magnitude off on the density. (or the drive is way bigger than an aircraft carrier.)
I think that you can't get past the title without an oops: "Seagate Releases 6TB Hard Drive Sans Helium"
Doesn't "sans" mean without?
My understanding is that this is treading on very dangerous grounds with respect to FAA guidelines.
A "share" of the cost includes all expenses of the flight. Rental, fuel, etc. The pilot and passenger must each pay half of total expenses.
The passenger can have no influence on the destination. If the pilot is flying from A to B and the passenger tags along, OK. But if the pilot just wants hours and goes to B because the passenger needs to go there then I think there is an FAA regulations problem and the FAA will consider the flight commercial.
That said I am not a lawyer nor a FAA guidelines expert. All I know is what my instructor told me many years ago in ground school. "The person showing you their FAA ID is never ever there to help you. Never hand your license to the FAA official to help them read / inspect it, that can be considered surrendering your license if the FAA official wishes to interpret the act as such. Keep the license in your hand and move it closer to their face if they are having a hard time reading it, pull it away if they reach for it. If they ask for it tell them you will be handing it to your attorney and they can speak with him/her."
access to unfiltered information will make people THINK! who would have thought? :)
Unfiltered information is not necessarily correct information. A peer reviewed scientific journal is an example of filtering. Filtering is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on the who and why of the filtering.
People sometimes think more emotionally than critically, are easy to deceive. The anti-vaccine movement grew with the internet too.
While the number of apps downloaded is coming from 3rd parties we are still left with Google's financial reports indicating $900M paid to developers compared to Apple's claim of $5,000M paid to developers.
Plus its not just Forbes indicating a huge disparity.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://techland.time.com/2013/...
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ay...
You make it up in volume. This is a false dilemma.
Actually you do not get enough volume to make it up, at least as of August 2013. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/tr...
Number of downloads per app, Android 60,000 and iOS 40,000.
Average revenue per download, Android $0.01875 and iOS $0.10.
Average revenue per app, Android $1,125 and iOS $4,000.
Putting Linux on the existing hardware would also make more sense ...
Perhaps for PC desktops but for PC laptops you are much more likely to have glitchy or unsupported hardware of some sort, ex. wifi.
And if Chrome doesn't work out you can install a full Linux on the chromebooks and you will have a complete and working set of drivers, there is a Linux under that Chrome.
Chrombook is Linux rite?
Yes and no. All you see is the chrome browser, however there is Linux underneath.
If you disable OS verification you can install a full Linux on it, ChrUbuntu.
Or they could just hire some kids to load Linux -- I could load Linux on a lot of old computers with a locked down linux and browser. The Chromebooks will be $200 per.
A year ago I bought an Acer C7 Chromebook and installed Linux on it. Its my first Linux laptop that has a complete and working set of drivers. Of all the previous PC laptops that I have had and converted to Linux upon their retirement, they were always glitchy in one way or another, or lacked drivers.
I have had much better luck with desktops but I tended to build my own and tended to go with well regarded parts.
That said, for US$200 the Acer C7 is a pretty good Linux laptop for the money. The screen and trackpad may be nothing special but thats acceptable given the price IMHO.
i wonder if us customers can sue and use these laws.
Remember, though, the IRS considers Bitcoin "property" not "money".
So sue/press charges on Mt. Gox for loss/theft of property?
US IRS notices don't have much weight in Japan. :-)
What the hell is a "racing version" of a Honda Civic.
For many, one with underbody LEDs. :-)
Each and every ledger entry has a cost basis. For incoming coins the new coins have a value based on the time they were received. The old coins returning to you based on when they were new. For outgoing coins (not including those coming back) it would probably be like other accounting practices where a first in first out (FIFO) system or a last in first out (LIFO) system is used. In either case the basis of the outgoing coins are known.
The odd thing would seem to be that as the outgoing coins are spent its necessary to determine if a gain (coins being paid at a price higher than basis) or a loss (coins being paid at a price lower than basis) is being recognized.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, its late, hopefully the point gets across.
Is all this a royal pain in the ass, yes. But basis, gains and losses seem perfectly calculable.
It is not a law, it is just a guidance, that is, their current interpretation of the law. It can change easily.
And until changes are made they will fine you and apply penalties if you deviate from their guidance. Their interpretation is not optional, it carries weight until a court or congress says otherwise.
I'm not an accountant, this is not tax advice.
It seems that miners need a daily log of the coins mined and the closing prices on an acceptable exchange. Each day's coins may have their own basis, the number mined multiplied by the closing price on the exchange. This basic seems to be counted as income.
Equipment and electricity are probably not factored into the basis. They are most likely a separate deduction.
The LAPD would only need to state that the images were captured with the intent of validating registration tags. Police have the right to look at a plate's registration tag when the vehicle is on a public road, and even stop you and ticket you if it is out of date. This could be automated and a ticket sent in the mail.
Computer viruses predated the internet and worked across sneaker nets. Code on a floppy can be infected. A floppy can contain data crafted to overrun buffers and execute code, etc. The internet just simplifies the process, automates it.
... it's anonymous if you take the effort and not anonymous if you don't ...
Not really. Merchants can out you.
According to the article Apple is asking for court documents. Although its not clear if they have been doing so from the initial contact. This probably had to work it way up a few levels of customer support to get to someone who knew what should be done. Lower levels probably only know to tell people to reset their password and check their email.
"off the market" and "legally own" are two different things. There is no "I forgot my password" link for bitcoins.
LMOL yeah it's not like Apple could not get the family to sign off on that. Apple does not need the court to do that! Morons.
So in your opinion the probate court system for executing a will is optional? Businesses are free to transfer accounts to people without court approval, including accounts that have monetary value or are linked to credit cards?
Also, do you not understand the security vulnerability if Apple just starts taking people's word for it with respect to resetting passwords on Apple IDs?
Christ have you read any of this thread or even TFA? It's in England there is no probate!
From wiki:
...
"A representative example of a complete probate clause, from the 14th century (or earlier) onwards
"This will was proved at London before the worshipful Sir Richard Raines, knight, Doctor of Laws, Master Keeper or Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, lawfully constituted, on the twenty third day of the month of June in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety seven, by the oath of Mary Bathurst, relict and executrix named in the said will, to whom administration was granted of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of the said deceased, sworn on the holy Gospel of God to well and faithfully administer the same. It has been examined"."
Which law?
Probate. From wiki:
"Probate is a legal document. Receipt of probate is the first step in the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person, resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under a will. A probate court (surrogate court) decides the legal validity of a testator's will and grants its approval by granting probate to the executor."
In short, Apple seems to want to see the court document stating that the person contacting Apple is indeed the executor of the will.