They are trying to enforce the agreement that companies have to be taxed equally. This agreement has a very good reason for existing - so countries can't give special tax breaks to companies based in that country while heavily taxing all foreign competition.
Ireland is part of this agreement. So they aren't allowed to give Apple a special deal.
"a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles," I can't see how it could do anything else. Surely the patent office wouldn't grant a completely useless patent!
They patented the technology, so they MUST have a way to detect who is the driver. That's what patents are for right? Innovations that solve hard problems?
And unlike when they were receiving unemployment payments, these people can now go out and get at least some form of a job without losing those payments.
My understanding is that in this case NASA didn't bother to claim the bag after it was confiscated from the thief. So after a while it was sold at auction by the police. It was a case of NASA not bothering to claim the bag before it was sold. So the item that was bought wasn't just stolen, it was also abandoned by the original owner.
But this not cheating, it is using the system. Par of the system is that the electors have no legal obligation to vote for whoever won the elections in their state. So it's not cheating, just 'clever use of game mechanics'. And doing it would be the best way to get the system changed - demonstrate that it is broken. Keeping Trump from being elected would push the issue to the congress, which would still elect him (probably), but it would be a big signal that things should change.
The definition of theft is "an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property". So no, just because you think taxation is wrong does not make it theft. If there is a law allowing it, then it is not unlawful. Therefore it is not theft.
How is it theft? Taxation is defined by law. If you think laws don't affect you, then the laws about property also don't exist, so you don't own whatever they are taking from you.
But that's all they have to submit. As long as they represent A copyright holder, they can basically issue takedown notices of anything, including your family pictures, if they claim it infringes the copyrights of their holder.
What the other governments are saying is that they want to follow the rules for the exit, which spell out a 2 year deadline. What they want to avoid is endless negotiations, so forcing the UK to actually (legally) declare they are leaving the union before any negotiations begin.
The other party can assume anything, that doesn't make it true.
Imagine if a US state signed a deal with ISIS to sell them nuclear warheads. Should ISIS still receive the warheads if the federal government later says no?
They can starve while living naked in the streets. Or, if their state is the result of mental illness, they can be put into treatment. They don't need to be taken care of further - they get their income and sooner or later they will start spending it on food or die - in both cases the problem is solved.
I think mutation isn't really that much of an issue if the DNA isn't actually doing anything (being duplicated or transcribed to RNA).
It's supposed to be one of the more stable ways of storing data, much better than tape in fact. What I'd be more worried about is reading it again - current ways of reading DNA can misread it and have problems with long sequences of the same base pair, so some kind of an encoding to avoid those would be needed.
It's a problem because it's a similar situation to how some benefits work right now - if you work you get money, but you lose your benefits. So let's say the benefit is 200$, and your pay is 250$. By working you in fact only get 50$ more. Ant it would be the same with appartments. If you get an appartment which would regularly go for 200$ for free, but can instead spend 250$ for a slightly better one, the cost increase is huge compared to the benefit. So you are disincentivizing people from slightly increasing their income if they want to improve some of the things they are getting for free.
About controls about what people spend money on - that is one of the biggest reasons for the basic income - it's simpler and may be cheaper than the current system of benefits, which requires hordes of bureaucrats to supervise and implement. You would need something like child protection services, but they'd have a much easier job - if a child is neglected it can never be a case of the parent just being poor. So taking children away from incompetent parents should be a much easier. Aside from that, if education is free, there is again no case for not educating the children.
Again, education and healthcare would be free for everyone - the whole system would be run by the government. Sure there could be a parallel private system, but it would have to compete with a system which doesn't care about profit margins at all. If everyone decides to get some cheap procedures at private clinics, then great, that's something the government doesn't have to pay for - it can't increase costs from everyone going to the public hospitals. This is exactly the way you'd like to have the housing situation handled. The difference is that here you have a 'public' good that doesn't have a financed private competitor, while your system would also have 'private' good (appartments), which wouldn't finance private solutions.
The problem is that the entire X suddenly has to come from your income, when the previous cost was entirely covered by the government. You also don't get the chance to downgrade your appartment - live in a tent to save money for something else.
Inflation wouldn't be that much of a factor - the services have to be provided by the government at the amount of the basic income, so even if you have high inflation you can still get everything in the basic package. (There should of course be a mechanism to increase the income based on inflation, but this safety measure ensures that even if the government starts playing tricks (lying about inflation), they still have to provide the services at that cost.
If I understand your last comment correctly, you're worried that the basic income will be mis-spent? It's up to each person - they can decide to starve to afford to buy the latest iPhone. The goal is to give everyone a chance of a normal life, not to force them into it.
The problem becomes that in this system it becomes very expensive to, for example, get a slightyl bigger appartment - you suddenly have to cover the whole cost instead of getting it for free.
Why not have it done this way: everyone gets a certain basic income. To ensure that it's sufficent to live on, the government also has to provide basic services that cost that basic amount. So let's say the basic income is X+Y+Z, the government has to offer apartments for X, food for Y and clothing for Z. 'Public' services such as healthcare and education would be free for all.
The private sector is of course welcome to undercut the government - it's up to the people to decide what they want and from whom. And the ones that decide to get a job can get better things without losing the value of the things the government provided previously.
Slashdot Mirror
They are trying to enforce the agreement that companies have to be taxed equally. This agreement has a very good reason for existing - so countries can't give special tax breaks to companies based in that country while heavily taxing all foreign competition.
Ireland is part of this agreement. So they aren't allowed to give Apple a special deal.
"a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles,"
I can't see how it could do anything else. Surely the patent office wouldn't grant a completely useless patent!
They patented the technology, so they MUST have a way to detect who is the driver. That's what patents are for right? Innovations that solve hard problems?
And unlike when they were receiving unemployment payments, these people can now go out and get at least some form of a job without losing those payments.
My understanding is that in this case NASA didn't bother to claim the bag after it was confiscated from the thief. So after a while it was sold at auction by the police.
It was a case of NASA not bothering to claim the bag before it was sold. So the item that was bought wasn't just stolen, it was also abandoned by the original owner.
The rules were set and the rules say the winner does not need to be respected.
But this not cheating, it is using the system. Par of the system is that the electors have no legal obligation to vote for whoever won the elections in their state.
So it's not cheating, just 'clever use of game mechanics'. And doing it would be the best way to get the system changed - demonstrate that it is broken.
Keeping Trump from being elected would push the issue to the congress, which would still elect him (probably), but it would be a big signal that things should change.
The definition of theft is "an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property". So no, just because you think taxation is wrong does not make it theft. If there is a law allowing it, then it is not unlawful. Therefore it is not theft.
How is it theft? Taxation is defined by law. If you think laws don't affect you, then the laws about property also don't exist, so you don't own whatever they are taking from you.
You mean it won't improve everyone equally.
Should all human progress stop unless it happens everywhere at once? Should we all abandon our cities since some tribes still live in villages?
But that's all they have to submit. As long as they represent A copyright holder, they can basically issue takedown notices of anything, including your family pictures, if they claim it infringes the copyrights of their holder.
What the other governments are saying is that they want to follow the rules for the exit, which spell out a 2 year deadline. What they want to avoid is endless negotiations, so forcing the UK to actually (legally) declare they are leaving the union before any negotiations begin.
What do you mean US companies? Apple Ireland is an European company.
The other party can assume anything, that doesn't make it true.
Imagine if a US state signed a deal with ISIS to sell them nuclear warheads. Should ISIS still receive the warheads if the federal government later says no?
The tax rate was set at 12.5%, Apple signed a contract saying they'd pay a lot less. The contract has now been found illegal.
So the cop who shot first is going to be convicted right?
Do self defense laws apply to defense against the police when they are obviously trying to kill you?
So you'd support a system that takes children away from their parents at birth and raises them in communal homes.
Because that's the only way I see of creating an 'equal opportunity' society.
They can starve while living naked in the streets. Or, if their state is the result of mental illness, they can be put into treatment.
They don't need to be taken care of further - they get their income and sooner or later they will start spending it on food or die - in both cases the problem is solved.
It claims DNA can remain stable for more than 500 years. And the life expectancy of tape only appears to be 30 years or so (found from other sources).
What I find surprising is that (printed)CDs don't have a much longer lifespan, but it seems they are prone to corrode.
I think mutation isn't really that much of an issue if the DNA isn't actually doing anything (being duplicated or transcribed to RNA).
It's supposed to be one of the more stable ways of storing data, much better than tape in fact. What I'd be more worried about is reading it again - current ways of reading DNA can misread it and have problems with long sequences of the same base pair, so some kind of an encoding to avoid those would be needed.
I've recreated the universe at least a dozen times now, and marketing keeps complaining the fonts aren't quite right.
It's a problem because it's a similar situation to how some benefits work right now - if you work you get money, but you lose your benefits. So let's say the benefit is 200$, and your pay is 250$. By working you in fact only get 50$ more.
Ant it would be the same with appartments. If you get an appartment which would regularly go for 200$ for free, but can instead spend 250$ for a slightly better one, the cost increase is huge compared to the benefit. So you are disincentivizing people from slightly increasing their income if they want to improve some of the things they are getting for free.
About controls about what people spend money on - that is one of the biggest reasons for the basic income - it's simpler and may be cheaper than the current system of benefits, which requires hordes of bureaucrats to supervise and implement. You would need something like child protection services, but they'd have a much easier job - if a child is neglected it can never be a case of the parent just being poor. So taking children away from incompetent parents should be a much easier. Aside from that, if education is free, there is again no case for not educating the children.
Again, education and healthcare would be free for everyone - the whole system would be run by the government. Sure there could be a parallel private system, but it would have to compete with a system which doesn't care about profit margins at all. If everyone decides to get some cheap procedures at private clinics, then great, that's something the government doesn't have to pay for - it can't increase costs from everyone going to the public hospitals. This is exactly the way you'd like to have the housing situation handled. The difference is that here you have a 'public' good that doesn't have a financed private competitor, while your system would also have 'private' good (appartments), which wouldn't finance private solutions.
The problem is that the entire X suddenly has to come from your income, when the previous cost was entirely covered by the government. You also don't get the chance to downgrade your appartment - live in a tent to save money for something else.
Inflation wouldn't be that much of a factor - the services have to be provided by the government at the amount of the basic income, so even if you have high inflation you can still get everything in the basic package. (There should of course be a mechanism to increase the income based on inflation, but this safety measure ensures that even if the government starts playing tricks (lying about inflation), they still have to provide the services at that cost.
If I understand your last comment correctly, you're worried that the basic income will be mis-spent? It's up to each person - they can decide to starve to afford to buy the latest iPhone. The goal is to give everyone a chance of a normal life, not to force them into it.
The problem becomes that in this system it becomes very expensive to, for example, get a slightyl bigger appartment - you suddenly have to cover the whole cost instead of getting it for free.
Why not have it done this way: everyone gets a certain basic income. To ensure that it's sufficent to live on, the government also has to provide basic services that cost that basic amount.
So let's say the basic income is X+Y+Z, the government has to offer apartments for X, food for Y and clothing for Z. 'Public' services such as healthcare and education would be free for all.
The private sector is of course welcome to undercut the government - it's up to the people to decide what they want and from whom. And the ones that decide to get a job can get better things without losing the value of the things the government provided previously.
What may stop you from keeping a copy is exactly what may stop you right now from just giving out or selling multiple copies right now - the law.