Not if it is against the license - you could have access to the source code but have a license that prohibits redestribution. Or a license that prohibits use without paying for it.
But a modified version CAN be re-licensed. They can add their modifications to the Apache licensed code and license the resulting code any way they want. Even if the modifications are minor.
Except that the transaction fees are NOT based on a percentage of the amount sent, but a fixed amount (kind of) per transaction - so in case you are sending 50$ worth of bitcoin to your family, you're going to have to pray 3 fees (buying, sending to family, converting to local currency), which at the moment would come to about 15%. And that is assuming that your local dealer doesn't take a cut for himself.
And since the interest rate will be high AND the value of each unit of currency will be growing very few people will be able to pay back their debts. Which will increase the interest rate (risk).
That part is covered by interest. In an inflationary system, you can charge a certain % of interest per year, so the value of the loan (if nothing is paid back) actually increases.
In a deflationary system there is no incentive to give out a loan or to take a loan - if you take a loan it will likely grow too fast for you to repay. If you don't give out a loan your capital will grow on its own, so why bother.
But are cryptocurrencies actually useful for that purpose? What you describe would require at least 3 transactions. The transaction costs of that if you were to use Bitcoin would already make it almost useless for transactions, and it will only get worse as more people tried to use it.
If Equifax is so worried about the lawyers share, why don't they just offer to settle with everyone for X$ right now? No need for lawyers at all.
Additionally, the price of representation in a class action lawsuit is probably lower (per plaintiff) than in a regular lawsuit - the amount that the lawyers receive is a high% of the settlement, but what would the amount be if every plaintiff had to have their own trial/lawyers?
They could just declare that coin X owes Y amount of taxes. Whenever that coin reaches a publically known wallet, the owner needs to pay those taxes. If the coin tax dues are known, that would mean that the value of a coin would drop since everyone would know that X is owed on that coin.
A few international deals would be needed (no double taxation), but the government would be able to extract the entire amount owed eventually.
Hmm, why do you think that transactions can't be taxed? Since the whole transaction history is public, just count a x% fee each time the coin switches wallets (unless someone presents proof both wallets belong to the same party), then when the coin is used to purchase something demand payment of all back taxes owed on that coin. It seems to me that it is actually much easier to tax then cash.
Does the same apply to physical bills? So for example must a bank keep track of which serial numbers were deposited by which customer and which were given out?
Must a shop keep record of serial numbers when splitting a larger bill?
Wouldn't a two child policy be better? Yes, population will keep rising for a while, but it will someday reach a 'stable-ish' level. If we go to a one child policy, we'll have an 'old-heavy' population soon AND the policy will have to be changed someday anyway.
They can sue the executives for their decisions. Probably easier than the people affected by the breach. So round one should be a class action to bankrupt the company, round two should be shareholders against executives.
But in this case there seem to be enough cultural differences between races to skew the results. I'm guessing it's something along the lines that white people in the learning set were more likely to lie about stealing while hungry, while the black people were more honest. Since the AI didn't have data about race, it couldn't use it while learning - it had to average things out which means (since there were probably more white people in the learning set), that mostly 'hardened criminals' responded that stealing was ok.
What these results basically show us that there ARE differences between the races, and that including race machine learning could lead to LESS racist outcomes.
So does that mean that corporations can knowingly order people in their subsidiaries to break laws? I would have thought that would mean that any employees that gave those orders could be prosecuted in the EU.
They would. Taking care of a slave is expensive - food, clothing, housing. Much better to set them free so they have to take of all of those expenses themselves, while you only pay them while they are actually working for you. They would stick them with the debt for their upbringing though.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it is against the license - you could have access to the source code but have a license that prohibits redestribution. Or a license that prohibits use without paying for it.
But a modified version CAN be re-licensed. They can add their modifications to the Apache licensed code and license the resulting code any way they want. Even if the modifications are minor.
Except that the transaction fees are NOT based on a percentage of the amount sent, but a fixed amount (kind of) per transaction - so in case you are sending 50$ worth of bitcoin to your family, you're going to have to pray 3 fees (buying, sending to family, converting to local currency), which at the moment would come to about 15%. And that is assuming that your local dealer doesn't take a cut for himself.
And since the interest rate will be high AND the value of each unit of currency will be growing very few people will be able to pay back their debts. Which will increase the interest rate (risk).
That part is covered by interest. In an inflationary system, you can charge a certain % of interest per year, so the value of the loan (if nothing is paid back) actually increases.
In a deflationary system there is no incentive to give out a loan or to take a loan - if you take a loan it will likely grow too fast for you to repay. If you don't give out a loan your capital will grow on its own, so why bother.
But are cryptocurrencies actually useful for that purpose? What you describe would require at least 3 transactions. The transaction costs of that if you were to use Bitcoin would already make it almost useless for transactions, and it will only get worse as more people tried to use it.
If Equifax is so worried about the lawyers share, why don't they just offer to settle with everyone for X$ right now? No need for lawyers at all.
Additionally, the price of representation in a class action lawsuit is probably lower (per plaintiff) than in a regular lawsuit - the amount that the lawyers receive is a high% of the settlement, but what would the amount be if every plaintiff had to have their own trial/lawyers?
I don't think they'd need to.
They could just declare that coin X owes Y amount of taxes. Whenever that coin reaches a publically known wallet, the owner needs to pay those taxes. If the coin tax dues are known, that would mean that the value of a coin would drop since everyone would know that X is owed on that coin.
A few international deals would be needed (no double taxation), but the government would be able to extract the entire amount owed eventually.
Hmm, why do you think that transactions can't be taxed? Since the whole transaction history is public, just count a x% fee each time the coin switches wallets (unless someone presents proof both wallets belong to the same party), then when the coin is used to purchase something demand payment of all back taxes owed on that coin.
It seems to me that it is actually much easier to tax then cash.
Does the same apply to physical bills? So for example must a bank keep track of which serial numbers were deposited by which customer and which were given out?
Must a shop keep record of serial numbers when splitting a larger bill?
"to authors and inventors"
And the journals are neither.
Wouldn't a two child policy be better?
Yes, population will keep rising for a while, but it will someday reach a 'stable-ish' level. If we go to a one child policy, we'll have an 'old-heavy' population soon AND the policy will have to be changed someday anyway.
They can sue the executives for their decisions. Probably easier than the people affected by the breach.
So round one should be a class action to bankrupt the company, round two should be shareholders against executives.
Why not send the military a bill for the drone?
Now don't insult Hitler by comparing him to Trump. Hitler was actually a competent (if evil) leader.
So why doesn't RIAA demand that all of their products are removed from Youtube?
But in this case there seem to be enough cultural differences between races to skew the results. I'm guessing it's something along the lines that white people in the learning set were more likely to lie about stealing while hungry, while the black people were more honest. Since the AI didn't have data about race, it couldn't use it while learning - it had to average things out which means (since there were probably more white people in the learning set), that mostly 'hardened criminals' responded that stealing was ok.
What these results basically show us that there ARE differences between the races, and that including race machine learning could lead to LESS racist outcomes.
It seems to me that what it was missing was the data about race.
Why would you expect the AI to give you the correct answer based on parameter X, when you excluded that parameter during testing and use.
Higher prices? You mean prices rise when people buying things have the same amount of money and the employers are paying them the same?
That sure sounds beneficial for the worker - they work less and get the same.
So does that mean that corporations can knowingly order people in their subsidiaries to break laws? I would have thought that would mean that any employees that gave those orders could be prosecuted in the EU.
They were escaping from the inability to oppress others, not from being oppressed.
They would.
Taking care of a slave is expensive - food, clothing, housing. Much better to set them free so they have to take of all of those expenses themselves, while you only pay them while they are actually working for you.
They would stick them with the debt for their upbringing though.
No, it's their employer that is robbing them.
3.a) Apple can no longer use Ireland as a tariff free shelter inside the EU. Apple branch in Ireland is shut down.