Profit motives can be effective, but it's important to understand that they will optimize towards profit, not accomplishing the stated goal. The profit motive is responsible for why bottled water manufacturers are able to cut their own production costs. The solution to the problem of clean water availability is a matter of building infrastructure, and of inventing technology to improve efficiency/output/etc.. The former basically boils down to proper public funding, and the latter is mostly coming from university research. So, profit motives don't currently seem to have much in line with useful water processing and distribution.
You can have a looser fit that still fits, and what kind of fit is ideal is going to be highly variable from person to person. The difference would be that we're basing the clothing on the particular person's shoulders and elbows instead of mathematical averages.
You are ignoring the chicken-or-the-egg problem. Most men don't care about fit, but it could be because most men have never had clothes that fit, outside of maybe prom and weddings.
The sane strategy for AI tailors is going to be reaching that "good enough" market first, and creeping upward as the tech improves and better data is collected.
At least 30% of the people released went back to terrorism, I'd call that strong correlation with gitmo actually housing dirtbags.
You'd probably become a terrorist too if you were anally raped and tortured. Also, the principles of justice are not based on "correlation," and certainly not a correlation where 70% are innocent. I'm done. You're too damn stupid to talk with, and I have a lot of patience.
Even at "absolute minimum", there will still be secrets.
WAHHH! Perfect is the enemy of good, so I can't acknowledge a general philosophy to apply to governance.
Ah, yes — time for using (over)loaded terms in rhetoric...
Okay then "adopt non-interventionist foreign policy." The point is that the military is responsible for one of if not the largest troves of government secrets, and if the US stops being interventionist, then the need for those secrets is basically gone.
Do drug-related prosecutions disproportionately require sealed warrants or FISA-approved surveillance? I don't think so.
Contraband is key to funding just about any criminal organization, and criminal organizations are used for the justification of sting operations and other cloak and dagger rubbish. By making it not contraband, the issues can be resolved with the normal legal system.
Ah, so this, is what contributes to secrecy in courts?..
Yes, because state secrets exist largely to cover corruption and incompetence, and bribery contributes immensely to both.
Yeah, because anonymity is the root of all evil.
I'm very pro-anonymity, but I see little legitimate reason for ownership of legal entities to be private, especially since there are forms of business other than corporations.
Even if the time they last shortens because we implement all of your wise suggestions, the secrets would still be plentiful and the need to maintain them for some time (initially) remain. So we'll still need secret hearings in regular courts and/or courts dedicated to hearings on secret matters.
Hey look, it's "perfect is the enemy of good" again. By stopping the shell game and legalizing contraband, you've gotten rid of most of the reasons for informants, and thus, the reason they would need to be protected. Organized crime doesn't exist because it's hard to effectively combat organized crime. It exists because it's hard to effectively combat organized crime without also exposing wrongdoing by powerful "legitimate" interests.
Secrets are detrimental to a free society, and they should be kept to an absolute minimum. Stop being imperialistic, legalize drugs and prostitution, get money out of politics, and have shell corporation ownership be public record. Do all of that, and the need for the government to have secrets that last any long amount of time is all but eliminated.
Being hypocrites doesn't mean they aren't right. Get rid of FISA, get rid of the Patriot Act. Get rid of the CIA and NSA, cut the FBI's budget to 1/10 of what it is. Declassify almost everything except for weapon designs and current troop locations.
Taxes are payment for services the government renders, and giant corporations like Apple are the biggest users of those services. It is unsustainable for them to not be paying appropriate levels of taxes.
You do know that around 70% of households take standard deductions, right? Slashdot skews a bit higher up economically, but there are plenty of people who pay exactly what they legally have to.
Fiduciary responsibility is more about embezzlement or getting a lousy contract with your uncle's company, pretty much limited to conflicts of interest or outright sabotage.
Not avoiding taxes would be likely to get the CEO fired, but they wouldn't be in trouble for failing their fiduciary duty. Management can do just about anything legally, as long as there is a remotely possible business explanation. So, in regards to paying taxes, they could argue that it's good PR or that it's to avoid punitive changes to the law. The shareholders probably wouldn't by it, but they'd be okay legally.
See, our system is self-improving, we're not the good guys but the guys with a system that can fix itself.
Self-repair requires criticism. If there is no criticism, there is no self-repair, which is why fixing things often takes so long.
Gitmo is for enemy combatants and terrorists, your *opinion* of it is may not be held be all.
Gitmo is full of people we asked other governments to round up. We asked for terrorists, but they just gave us people they didn't like, which doesn't correlate all that strongly to actual terrorists. Plus, the methods employed there are useless, as torture does not work for gathering useful intel, which has been known for a very long time.
If you're defending Gitmo, no wonder this conversation isn't going anywhere.
Our system helped put down the Nazis, but the Russians did most of the work. Even during that time, though, we put the Japanese in interment camps, which is still on the side of very awful things.
Our system included slavery, and de facto segregation was upheld as law for decades afterwards.
Our system still includes Gitmo.
If you buy into not being concerned with law because we are the "good guys," which appears to roughly approximate your position, then you're even worse than someone who merely supports law, because you've got a dogmatic belief that blinds you to abuse.
I'd be far more concerned about someone who can't evaluate systems outside of the current rule of law. Many of the worst atrocities in human history were legal under rule of law.
So, let me get this straight...governmental tax policy should follow "public opinion" because why again?
Public opinion should in some way reflect public opinion because we live in a democracy. Now, we should weigh that against the opinions and advice of reputable economists, but guess what, reputable economists don't support supply-side economics, which is what this is.
Lowering the tax rate makes...[incoherent Alzheimer's-riddled Laffer curve bullshit that doesn't reflect reality]
Our tax policy is not supported by data, is not supported by the majority of economists, and it is not supported by the public. The only group that supports it are campaign donors, their paid "experts," and gullible peons like you. Even some billionaires that directly benefit from these policies, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, say that we don't need to lower corporate tax rates.
Discussions like this always come down to two sides: factual reality and "feelings". Forming national fiscal policy based on feelings is an incredibly poor way to go.
You are right about that. You just don't know which side of that discussion you are actually on.
It's a legal distinction without a practical difference. Lobbying is legalized bribery. Enhanced interrogation is legalized torture. Tax avoidance is legalized tax evasion. All should be referred to as their criminal form instead of the euphemism, because euphemisms get in the way of actually addressing problems. I'm calling a spade a spade, and not mincing words just because of legal loopholes. Do I need to pull up a George Carlin routine to explain to you how euphemisms are used to conceal abuse?
Here's what the actual headline should be:
Tech firms let Russia probe software widely used by US government, following same processes US government, and all other governments, use.
This is a non-story. They try to make it sound like this is some nefarious method to undermine the US government, when the reality is that they're checking to make sure there aren't NSA backdoors.
No, what Damore was getting at was that while tech environments often have good pay, they are highly abusive, like working for assholes like Steve Jobs. People that care about work-life balance are thus discouraged from tech, and that bears out statistically with having a lot of young white dudes.
Damore wasn't saying that tech needs to be cool. Damore was saying that someone should punched Steve Jobs in his asshole face when he abused his employees.
I didn't say growth was a bad thing, I said it was a poor metric. A lower GINI coefficient, or wage increases that roughly match productivity increases are better indicators of overall economic health, although even those really need broader context, but context doesn't make for good memes.
As for the "why now," there are two main factors.
1) They were planning on doing these things at roughly the same levels at roughly the same timeframe, and announced it as a way of encouraging more handouts.
2) The reason they were hiding their money was because they knew a holiday like this would come, and that there were no disincentives for holding out. So, this behavior only encourages further abuse. You're like the idiots who feel grateful that they get a tax refund instead of being pissed that the government needlessly jacked their money for the rest of the year.
Solving the disincentives part is the solution, but since both parties are controlled by lobbyists, we don't have that as an option. We can get the money we should get if we're willing to use a stick now and again instead of just a carrot all of the time. Punish those that use tax havens, and they won't use tax havens. Greater transparency on shell corporations would also make solving these problems easier.
Finally, as others pointed out, US taxes aren't high, except for nominally.
You misunderstood my point entirely. I feel that what the law IS conflicts with what the law WOULD BE under an equitable system that is a democracy instead of an oligarchy. By public opinion, corporate tax rates should increase, but policy does not reflect public opinion.
It's similar to, and directly related to, how lobbyists are the least trusted profession because the public perceives their role as bribery. Legally, it is distinct from bribery, but it is a legal distinction without a practical difference.
The law can be and often is a farce, as anyone who has studied history will know well.
Slashdot Mirror
Profit motives can be effective, but it's important to understand that they will optimize towards profit, not accomplishing the stated goal. The profit motive is responsible for why bottled water manufacturers are able to cut their own production costs. The solution to the problem of clean water availability is a matter of building infrastructure, and of inventing technology to improve efficiency/output/etc.. The former basically boils down to proper public funding, and the latter is mostly coming from university research. So, profit motives don't currently seem to have much in line with useful water processing and distribution.
You can have a looser fit that still fits, and what kind of fit is ideal is going to be highly variable from person to person. The difference would be that we're basing the clothing on the particular person's shoulders and elbows instead of mathematical averages.
You are ignoring the chicken-or-the-egg problem. Most men don't care about fit, but it could be because most men have never had clothes that fit, outside of maybe prom and weddings.
The sane strategy for AI tailors is going to be reaching that "good enough" market first, and creeping upward as the tech improves and better data is collected.
You'd probably become a terrorist too if you were anally raped and tortured. Also, the principles of justice are not based on "correlation," and certainly not a correlation where 70% are innocent. I'm done. You're too damn stupid to talk with, and I have a lot of patience.
WAHHH! Perfect is the enemy of good, so I can't acknowledge a general philosophy to apply to governance.
Okay then "adopt non-interventionist foreign policy." The point is that the military is responsible for one of if not the largest troves of government secrets, and if the US stops being interventionist, then the need for those secrets is basically gone.
Contraband is key to funding just about any criminal organization, and criminal organizations are used for the justification of sting operations and other cloak and dagger rubbish. By making it not contraband, the issues can be resolved with the normal legal system.
Yes, because state secrets exist largely to cover corruption and incompetence, and bribery contributes immensely to both.
I'm very pro-anonymity, but I see little legitimate reason for ownership of legal entities to be private, especially since there are forms of business other than corporations.
Hey look, it's "perfect is the enemy of good" again. By stopping the shell game and legalizing contraband, you've gotten rid of most of the reasons for informants, and thus, the reason they would need to be protected. Organized crime doesn't exist because it's hard to effectively combat organized crime. It exists because it's hard to effectively combat organized crime without also exposing wrongdoing by powerful "legitimate" interests.
Secrets are detrimental to a free society, and they should be kept to an absolute minimum. Stop being imperialistic, legalize drugs and prostitution, get money out of politics, and have shell corporation ownership be public record. Do all of that, and the need for the government to have secrets that last any long amount of time is all but eliminated.
Being hypocrites doesn't mean they aren't right. Get rid of FISA, get rid of the Patriot Act. Get rid of the CIA and NSA, cut the FBI's budget to 1/10 of what it is. Declassify almost everything except for weapon designs and current troop locations.
Taxes are payment for services the government renders, and giant corporations like Apple are the biggest users of those services. It is unsustainable for them to not be paying appropriate levels of taxes.
You do know that around 70% of households take standard deductions, right? Slashdot skews a bit higher up economically, but there are plenty of people who pay exactly what they legally have to.
Not avoiding taxes would be likely to get the CEO fired, but they wouldn't be in trouble for failing their fiduciary duty. Management can do just about anything legally, as long as there is a remotely possible business explanation. So, in regards to paying taxes, they could argue that it's good PR or that it's to avoid punitive changes to the law. The shareholders probably wouldn't by it, but they'd be okay legally.
No, government censorship is by definition a government activity, but censorship can be private. There's even self-censorship.
Metronomes.
I'm pretty sure he didn't actually say that. Trump isn't a PT Barnum, he's an 8-year old.
Self-repair requires criticism. If there is no criticism, there is no self-repair, which is why fixing things often takes so long.
Gitmo is full of people we asked other governments to round up. We asked for terrorists, but they just gave us people they didn't like, which doesn't correlate all that strongly to actual terrorists. Plus, the methods employed there are useless, as torture does not work for gathering useful intel, which has been known for a very long time.
If you're defending Gitmo, no wonder this conversation isn't going anywhere.
Our system included slavery, and de facto segregation was upheld as law for decades afterwards.
Our system still includes Gitmo.
If you buy into not being concerned with law because we are the "good guys," which appears to roughly approximate your position, then you're even worse than someone who merely supports law, because you've got a dogmatic belief that blinds you to abuse.
I'd be far more concerned about someone who can't evaluate systems outside of the current rule of law. Many of the worst atrocities in human history were legal under rule of law.
Public opinion should in some way reflect public opinion because we live in a democracy. Now, we should weigh that against the opinions and advice of reputable economists, but guess what, reputable economists don't support supply-side economics, which is what this is.
Our tax policy is not supported by data, is not supported by the majority of economists, and it is not supported by the public. The only group that supports it are campaign donors, their paid "experts," and gullible peons like you. Even some billionaires that directly benefit from these policies, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, say that we don't need to lower corporate tax rates.
You are right about that. You just don't know which side of that discussion you are actually on.
It's a legal distinction without a practical difference. Lobbying is legalized bribery. Enhanced interrogation is legalized torture. Tax avoidance is legalized tax evasion. All should be referred to as their criminal form instead of the euphemism, because euphemisms get in the way of actually addressing problems. I'm calling a spade a spade, and not mincing words just because of legal loopholes. Do I need to pull up a George Carlin routine to explain to you how euphemisms are used to conceal abuse?
Tech firms let Russia probe software widely used by US government, following same processes US government, and all other governments, use.
This is a non-story. They try to make it sound like this is some nefarious method to undermine the US government, when the reality is that they're checking to make sure there aren't NSA backdoors.
I take a standard deduction, actually.
No, what Damore was getting at was that while tech environments often have good pay, they are highly abusive, like working for assholes like Steve Jobs. People that care about work-life balance are thus discouraged from tech, and that bears out statistically with having a lot of young white dudes.
Damore wasn't saying that tech needs to be cool. Damore was saying that someone should punched Steve Jobs in his asshole face when he abused his employees.
I didn't say growth was a bad thing, I said it was a poor metric. A lower GINI coefficient, or wage increases that roughly match productivity increases are better indicators of overall economic health, although even those really need broader context, but context doesn't make for good memes.
As for the "why now," there are two main factors.
1) They were planning on doing these things at roughly the same levels at roughly the same timeframe, and announced it as a way of encouraging more handouts.
2) The reason they were hiding their money was because they knew a holiday like this would come, and that there were no disincentives for holding out. So, this behavior only encourages further abuse. You're like the idiots who feel grateful that they get a tax refund instead of being pissed that the government needlessly jacked their money for the rest of the year.
Solving the disincentives part is the solution, but since both parties are controlled by lobbyists, we don't have that as an option. We can get the money we should get if we're willing to use a stick now and again instead of just a carrot all of the time. Punish those that use tax havens, and they won't use tax havens. Greater transparency on shell corporations would also make solving these problems easier.
Finally, as others pointed out, US taxes aren't high, except for nominally.
Of course not. If the CEO of Apple says something, that DOES mean he's full of shit.
You misunderstood my point entirely. I feel that what the law IS conflicts with what the law WOULD BE under an equitable system that is a democracy instead of an oligarchy. By public opinion, corporate tax rates should increase, but policy does not reflect public opinion.
It's similar to, and directly related to, how lobbyists are the least trusted profession because the public perceives their role as bribery. Legally, it is distinct from bribery, but it is a legal distinction without a practical difference.
The law can be and often is a farce, as anyone who has studied history will know well.
And you actually wrote "Is there anything _is_ can do". I agree with your sentiment, but you did actually make a typo.