Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law
Extradition orders are only honored when the action a country is seeking to extradite for is illegal in both countries. This is why they will be in front of a judge today/tomorrow who will rule if the "crimes" they are accused of meet the dual criminality requirements.
> But that's what happens when you base your whole economy on slavery and blame other people because you can't compete with free market mass industrialization.
Actualy somewhat the inverse is true. The South traded their cotton with Europe and brought back technology and other goods with them. In order to protect the industrial cities in the North the federal government imposed heavy import duties on almost everything the south was buying up. Ultimately this was the sticking point in discussions; The south agreed, in principal, to end slavery on the condition that the economic protectionism of the north was also ended at the same time but this was ultimately rejected.
Neither side had a free market and both wanted some form of protectionism be it slavery or import taxes.
> This sounds great and all, but it seems a shame that they've got to bribe people into developing such a device. A portable, multi-purpose medical diagnostic tool isn't sufficiently desirable on its own? You'd think something like this would have been in development for years already.
It has been. The x prizes are about encouraging startups and outsiders to the fields in question to become involved and so both bring fresh eyes to the problem and provide an influx of tallent in to a specific sub-sector of an industry. With publicly funded efforts (NiH) and alike things get even more murky with various restrictions on how resultant technologies would be used.
An existing multinational funding a project like this internally would be mired in beurocracy and would be competing with internal politics where people have established their careers supporting and selling older forms of diagnostic equipment. A startup doesn't face these, can be run on a shoestring, and in addition the prise money and the massive publicity winning would bring provides a massive boost in their attempts to recieve funding.
OEM is a device license, the full version is a user license. Also the full version includes x86 & amd64 while OEM targets a specific architecture.
You can buy an OEM license and use it but the terms do not permit you to move it to a different machine.
> It's not full proof, of course, but if it's the only evidence one can go by, it's better to regard it than disregard it and claim the opposite.
Or one can recognize that the question is impossible to answer and so either view point is absurd. The rational position is one of agnosticism, along with a healthy dose of “it doesn’t really matter anyway”, and generally regarding those with extreme atheist or religious views to be equally batshit.
Those that are missing currently (almost entirely limited to entity framework and workflow) have open source alternatives already available (EG NHibernate for EF).
In terms of release cycles it varies fairly wildly. Mono actually was at release for several parts of Framework 4 before Microsoft had their version out of the door, Microsoft tend to be fairly verbose with the roadmap and also put out a great deal of CTP’s targeting small sections of functionality which allows downstream projects to stay on top of what’s coming,
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
That would be the Sixteenth Amendment, prior to this all income taxes had been temporary (with the bills having a fixed expiry date) and the single occasion they tried to make them progressive it got shot down in court. The end result of this was the only legal way for the federal gov to tax people was to tax everyone at the same rate, A16 was to allow them to progressively tax again.
A16 was only pushed through in the end under the premise that it would only ever apply to the richest 1% and would never be for more than 5%.
The FAA only has legal authority inside US borders, last I checked the US border ends at 100km so irrespective of this power grab the FAA lacks any form of authority to regulate.
Although you are technically correct that Mono is not a language, Mono IS a mechanism to use the C# language.
From there to actually develop applications for the iPhone, you make use of the Apple frameworks, which Mono has handily wrapped in C# wrappers.
No, Mono is a mechanism to use the CLR. I can quite hapily use any language I have an IL compiler for, there are some available under the mono platform for c# and vb.net etc, or I can use my MS ones under windows and run my assemblies under mono on nix.
With one blocked the instruments for one of the pilots would have stopped working entirely and the flight computer would start giving extremely odd error messages. They may well have figured out what was going on but there would be no way to determine which set of instruments were correct and given position & time of day they didn’t have a visual point of reference to be able to orient themselves. This has happened before ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPeru_Flight_603), when the aircraft is throwing you overspeed and underspeed messages at the same time which one do you believe?
In the US, you have just as many CCTV cameras in your cities as London does.
London has ~250,000 cameras according to the CCTV user group. According to NYACLU New York has ~12,000.
I can't imagine a greater infringement of civil liberties than living like the Americans, with a gun pointed at them every second of their lives.
In some US cities it is harder to get a license to carry a gun outside the home then in the UK, Italy has fewer restrictions than half a dozen US states.
The US states with few restrictions (open carry, must issue concealed carry) also have the lowest levels of violent crime. Also most of the US has lower level of violent crime then anywhere in the UK. Even non-urban crime rates are higher in the UK.
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington have legislation barring adoption of RealID. As the standard can't be mandatory (fedgov has no authority to force states to adopt a particular ID standard) there is little they can do other then try and bribe the stategov’s and make life difficult for the citizens in those states.
Higher corporate taxes lower the salaries of individuals working for organizations, particularly if those organizations are SME’s where margins are much tighter. Also in the retail sector higher corporate taxes translate to higher price points.
There is simply no such thing as distinguishing between individual economic freedom and corporate economic freedom, they don’t exist in separate vacuums. Restrict individual and there is less investment capital available for organizations, restrict corporate and the buying power of employees drops.
The use of "fair share" is half the problem. In anything else other than tax charging a single group of people one amount and a different group of people another amount for the same services would be discrimination and in many parts of the world would be illegal. The word fair means without favoring one party, given the wealthy are charged both higher in value and percentage the word fair is wrong. If everyone was charged 40% then it would be fair, when one set of people are charged 10% and another set 40% it is not even remotely fair.
The “tax dodgers” are in almost all cases already contributing a vast sum in taxes anyway and the offshore accounts only hold proceeds from offshore earnings which government (under the guise of society) can’t legitimately claim to have helped to produce (even though they do using worldwide earnings rules). If I live in country a but for whatever reason earn some money in country b then the government of country a should have absolutely no claim to any of it, the society of country a had no hand in creating that wealth.
The summary is missing the words "could possibly". There is no evidence that this has ever happened or any suggestion that there is a security hole that would let them do this in the first place.
Also the original source is wrong about monitoring. One of the reasons to pay $10k+ a year for 1u is that the bandwidth and latency to the trading platform is extremely low, there are multiple systems in place which monitor both sides of the exchange and validate each other’s stats, this is a fairly significant portion of the system - knowing how long ago news was released and how long it will take to make a trade based on that news is what makes HFT effective, monitoring is not an afterthought but is pretty much the core of the applications. In addition simply because of how HFT works when the “hackers” started gaming the system the other systems would stop trading until a human restarted them which would significantly limit the ability to exploit a security hole.
Apple have a 21.8 12 month normalized P/E which would be considered high (MSFT is 12.1, normal is between 10 & 16). Sure there is a debate to be had about if it is simply overvalued or if there is a good reason to believe revenues will rise sufficiently to justify this price but it is definitely high.
Also cash on hand doesn’t have much of an effect on P/E. It isn’t recorded as part of revenue and has both a negative (hanging on to large amounts of cash without either investing or issuing a dividend) and positive (investor confidence in medium term sustainability) impact on price which cancel each other out. Also consider that MSFT ($44.17B) has nearly double cash on hand as compared to APPL ($25.62B).
WoN actually referred to artificial monopolies rather than natural monopolies. The use of the word monopoly when Smith was alive only referred to artificial monopolies created by the state (at the time he was writing about the charters granted to the British East India Company), it wasn’t until 1844 (about 50 years after his death) that “normal” people could establish corporations or own stock without a royal charter and a further 10 years until the concept of limited liability was added. As a result both Smith & Ricardo are not useful reading on what a monopoly is, more contemporary economists such as Friedman have rightly refined the work of those who came before them to more narrowly define the difference between a good and bad monopoly.
Also even if the markets were “deregulated” it would still be an artificial monopoly, the deregulation refers to distribution only. Supply remains expensive and over regulated which has a much larger impact on the price point then distribution.
You seem to misunderstand how carriers (particularly mobile) set their pricing points. While they might offer 10gb a month they are relying on the fact most people won’t use that much, typically the cost of providing that much bandwidth to everyone would result in a loss for them.
Currently they block or significantly restrict services that encourage people to use a significant portion of their allowance (or indeed detract from other revenue generating measures) which allows them to keep their price point low as their assumptions about how much data people will use (rather than how much they are allowed to use) still hold up.
Bringing net neutrality to the mobile space would mean they would not longer to able to manage their networks to curb excessive bandwidth hogging applications. As soon as a fairly small minority of users is running at their 10gb a month cap they start making a loss and have to raise the price point to accommodate the new higher average usage.
Consider also that the economics of mobile broadband are very different to that of fixed line. Once a fixed line is installed the opex on it is virtually 0, the expense is in providing bandwidth from the local exchange/node through to a backbone and each node has a much greater coverage area then a cell station too. With mobile provisioning a line results in close to 0 capex but has a fairly high opex associated which rises based on the amount of data that needs to reach it.
The exception is appropriate in terms of economics and doesn’t present a realistic problem in terms of net neutrality of mobile data either.
Scare mongering aside this post has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with mobile carriers and how they already charge for data plans.
If you happen to be one of the tiny number of people who are on an unlimited data plan now nothing will change, your carrier will still do everything in their power to stop you using Skype (assuming you can, most have had it blocked for years) and other data intensive applications which reduce their revenue and margins.
If you are on a capped service nothing will change either. You are already paying for the data you consume.
I would go as far as to say this is a good thing. If this had landed in mobile internet land the cost of connectivity would have gone up substantially and even the notion of an unlimited data plan would be gone forever. Rather than dealing with data intensive applications by either blocking them or restricting their usage to certain hours / bandwidth they would have had to let them though. The cost of data would have to rise to accommodate the fact the carriers were not allowed to discriminate so the average use would rise with all the Skypers and Torrenters.
I’m pretty sure the last time we tried to tell an industry they couldn’t discriminate in service delivery (you know, 16 years ago when the Clinton administration told the banks they had to lend to poor people and brought in legislation to enforce it) it ended badly, perhaps an experiment not to repeat?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law
Extradition orders are only honored when the action a country is seeking to extradite for is illegal in both countries. This is why they will be in front of a judge today/tomorrow who will rule if the "crimes" they are accused of meet the dual criminality requirements.
Monopoly? Microsoft has a 0% market share in tablets and 5.8% in mobile.
Streets are wider, cities are more spread out and the distances are longer; as a result trenching is economical in Europe but not so much here.
> But that's what happens when you base your whole economy on slavery and blame other people because you can't compete with free market mass industrialization.
Actualy somewhat the inverse is true. The South traded their cotton with Europe and brought back technology and other goods with them. In order to protect the industrial cities in the North the federal government imposed heavy import duties on almost everything the south was buying up. Ultimately this was the sticking point in discussions; The south agreed, in principal, to end slavery on the condition that the economic protectionism of the north was also ended at the same time but this was ultimately rejected.
Neither side had a free market and both wanted some form of protectionism be it slavery or import taxes.
> This sounds great and all, but it seems a shame that they've got to bribe people into developing such a device. A portable, multi-purpose medical diagnostic tool isn't sufficiently desirable on its own? You'd think something like this would have been in development for years already.
It has been. The x prizes are about encouraging startups and outsiders to the fields in question to become involved and so both bring fresh eyes to the problem and provide an influx of tallent in to a specific sub-sector of an industry. With publicly funded efforts (NiH) and alike things get even more murky with various restrictions on how resultant technologies would be used.
An existing multinational funding a project like this internally would be mired in beurocracy and would be competing with internal politics where people have established their careers supporting and selling older forms of diagnostic equipment. A startup doesn't face these, can be run on a shoestring, and in addition the prise money and the massive publicity winning would bring provides a massive boost in their attempts to recieve funding.
If you care enough about what they are providing to sign up then clearly they are providing you a service.
OEM is a device license, the full version is a user license. Also the full version includes x86 & amd64 while OEM targets a specific architecture. You can buy an OEM license and use it but the terms do not permit you to move it to a different machine.
I thought this was stuff for nerds.
Breaking news: Steve Jobs bombs Oslo after finding out Apple slipped 31% YoY in the tablet market.
> It's not full proof, of course, but if it's the only evidence one can go by, it's better to regard it than disregard it and claim the opposite.
Or one can recognize that the question is impossible to answer and so either view point is absurd. The rational position is one of agnosticism, along with a healthy dose of “it doesn’t really matter anyway”, and generally regarding those with extreme atheist or religious views to be equally batshit.
The bits that make sense in cross platform systems have been done: http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
Those that are missing currently (almost entirely limited to entity framework and workflow) have open source alternatives already available (EG NHibernate for EF).
In terms of release cycles it varies fairly wildly. Mono actually was at release for several parts of Framework 4 before Microsoft had their version out of the door, Microsoft tend to be fairly verbose with the roadmap and also put out a great deal of CTP’s targeting small sections of functionality which allows downstream projects to stay on top of what’s coming,
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
That would be the Sixteenth Amendment, prior to this all income taxes had been temporary (with the bills having a fixed expiry date) and the single occasion they tried to make them progressive it got shot down in court. The end result of this was the only legal way for the federal gov to tax people was to tax everyone at the same rate, A16 was to allow them to progressively tax again. A16 was only pushed through in the end under the premise that it would only ever apply to the richest 1% and would never be for more than 5%.
The FAA only has legal authority inside US borders, last I checked the US border ends at 100km so irrespective of this power grab the FAA lacks any form of authority to regulate.
Although you are technically correct that Mono is not a language, Mono IS a mechanism to use the C# language.
From there to actually develop applications for the iPhone, you make use of the Apple frameworks, which Mono has handily wrapped in C# wrappers.
No, Mono is a mechanism to use the CLR. I can quite hapily use any language I have an IL compiler for, there are some available under the mono platform for c# and vb.net etc, or I can use my MS ones under windows and run my assemblies under mono on nix.
The sensors are static ports ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system), there are two and the both need to agree for the AP to work.
With one blocked the instruments for one of the pilots would have stopped working entirely and the flight computer would start giving extremely odd error messages. They may well have figured out what was going on but there would be no way to determine which set of instruments were correct and given position & time of day they didn’t have a visual point of reference to be able to orient themselves. This has happened before ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPeru_Flight_603), when the aircraft is throwing you overspeed and underspeed messages at the same time which one do you believe?
In the US, you have just as many CCTV cameras in your cities as London does.
London has ~250,000 cameras according to the CCTV user group. According to NYACLU New York has ~12,000.
I can't imagine a greater infringement of civil liberties than living like the Americans, with a gun pointed at them every second of their lives.
In some US cities it is harder to get a license to carry a gun outside the home then in the UK, Italy has fewer restrictions than half a dozen US states. The US states with few restrictions (open carry, must issue concealed carry) also have the lowest levels of violent crime. Also most of the US has lower level of violent crime then anywhere in the UK. Even non-urban crime rates are higher in the UK.
Do you intend on paying £1000 a month for the unrestricted packages then?
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington have legislation barring adoption of RealID. As the standard can't be mandatory (fedgov has no authority to force states to adopt a particular ID standard) there is little they can do other then try and bribe the stategov’s and make life difficult for the citizens in those states.
Higher corporate taxes lower the salaries of individuals working for organizations, particularly if those organizations are SME’s where margins are much tighter. Also in the retail sector higher corporate taxes translate to higher price points. There is simply no such thing as distinguishing between individual economic freedom and corporate economic freedom, they don’t exist in separate vacuums. Restrict individual and there is less investment capital available for organizations, restrict corporate and the buying power of employees drops.
The use of "fair share" is half the problem. In anything else other than tax charging a single group of people one amount and a different group of people another amount for the same services would be discrimination and in many parts of the world would be illegal. The word fair means without favoring one party, given the wealthy are charged both higher in value and percentage the word fair is wrong. If everyone was charged 40% then it would be fair, when one set of people are charged 10% and another set 40% it is not even remotely fair.
The “tax dodgers” are in almost all cases already contributing a vast sum in taxes anyway and the offshore accounts only hold proceeds from offshore earnings which government (under the guise of society) can’t legitimately claim to have helped to produce (even though they do using worldwide earnings rules). If I live in country a but for whatever reason earn some money in country b then the government of country a should have absolutely no claim to any of it, the society of country a had no hand in creating that wealth.
The summary is missing the words "could possibly". There is no evidence that this has ever happened or any suggestion that there is a security hole that would let them do this in the first place.
Also the original source is wrong about monitoring. One of the reasons to pay $10k+ a year for 1u is that the bandwidth and latency to the trading platform is extremely low, there are multiple systems in place which monitor both sides of the exchange and validate each other’s stats, this is a fairly significant portion of the system - knowing how long ago news was released and how long it will take to make a trade based on that news is what makes HFT effective, monitoring is not an afterthought but is pretty much the core of the applications. In addition simply because of how HFT works when the “hackers” started gaming the system the other systems would stop trading until a human restarted them which would significantly limit the ability to exploit a security hole.
Apple have a 21.8 12 month normalized P/E which would be considered high (MSFT is 12.1, normal is between 10 & 16). Sure there is a debate to be had about if it is simply overvalued or if there is a good reason to believe revenues will rise sufficiently to justify this price but it is definitely high.
Also cash on hand doesn’t have much of an effect on P/E. It isn’t recorded as part of revenue and has both a negative (hanging on to large amounts of cash without either investing or issuing a dividend) and positive (investor confidence in medium term sustainability) impact on price which cancel each other out. Also consider that MSFT ($44.17B) has nearly double cash on hand as compared to APPL ($25.62B).
WoN actually referred to artificial monopolies rather than natural monopolies. The use of the word monopoly when Smith was alive only referred to artificial monopolies created by the state (at the time he was writing about the charters granted to the British East India Company), it wasn’t until 1844 (about 50 years after his death) that “normal” people could establish corporations or own stock without a royal charter and a further 10 years until the concept of limited liability was added. As a result both Smith & Ricardo are not useful reading on what a monopoly is, more contemporary economists such as Friedman have rightly refined the work of those who came before them to more narrowly define the difference between a good and bad monopoly.
Also even if the markets were “deregulated” it would still be an artificial monopoly, the deregulation refers to distribution only. Supply remains expensive and over regulated which has a much larger impact on the price point then distribution.
Hey OP how about linking to the real article rather then a tiny oped that gives no real detail: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
You seem to misunderstand how carriers (particularly mobile) set their pricing points. While they might offer 10gb a month they are relying on the fact most people won’t use that much, typically the cost of providing that much bandwidth to everyone would result in a loss for them.
Currently they block or significantly restrict services that encourage people to use a significant portion of their allowance (or indeed detract from other revenue generating measures) which allows them to keep their price point low as their assumptions about how much data people will use (rather than how much they are allowed to use) still hold up.
Bringing net neutrality to the mobile space would mean they would not longer to able to manage their networks to curb excessive bandwidth hogging applications. As soon as a fairly small minority of users is running at their 10gb a month cap they start making a loss and have to raise the price point to accommodate the new higher average usage.
Consider also that the economics of mobile broadband are very different to that of fixed line. Once a fixed line is installed the opex on it is virtually 0, the expense is in providing bandwidth from the local exchange/node through to a backbone and each node has a much greater coverage area then a cell station too. With mobile provisioning a line results in close to 0 capex but has a fairly high opex associated which rises based on the amount of data that needs to reach it.
The exception is appropriate in terms of economics and doesn’t present a realistic problem in terms of net neutrality of mobile data either.
Scare mongering aside this post has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with mobile carriers and how they already charge for data plans.
If you happen to be one of the tiny number of people who are on an unlimited data plan now nothing will change, your carrier will still do everything in their power to stop you using Skype (assuming you can, most have had it blocked for years) and other data intensive applications which reduce their revenue and margins.
If you are on a capped service nothing will change either. You are already paying for the data you consume.
I would go as far as to say this is a good thing. If this had landed in mobile internet land the cost of connectivity would have gone up substantially and even the notion of an unlimited data plan would be gone forever. Rather than dealing with data intensive applications by either blocking them or restricting their usage to certain hours / bandwidth they would have had to let them though. The cost of data would have to rise to accommodate the fact the carriers were not allowed to discriminate so the average use would rise with all the Skypers and Torrenters.
I’m pretty sure the last time we tried to tell an industry they couldn’t discriminate in service delivery (you know, 16 years ago when the Clinton administration told the banks they had to lend to poor people and brought in legislation to enforce it) it ended badly, perhaps an experiment not to repeat?