They could do that. But they need to know who will buy it, how much they'll pay for it, and how many customers they'll have.
A VC doesn't care what it is. It could be a CD of killer tunes, or a skyscraper. What they care about is whether they'll actually make money from it. To convince them that they will, the pitcher needs to show them the market.
Google's policy has always been "don't be evil". Not "do no evil". This is substantially different. It gives them a lot of leeway to do some evil stuff, and still be subjectively non-evil.
The studios should be charged with fraud as well though.
Looking at the examples, it seems the studios often settle or lose when they are sued.
Here's a techdirt article on the practice. I think the main reason it's still happening is that usually, those with the resources to sue are also savvy enough to ask for a percentage of gross.
Honestly though, if a company decided to shift profits to another company in order to avoid paying shareholders, this would be considered outright fraud.
For some reason tax evasion doesn't have the same criteria.
Google is very tricky to deal with because they do operate essentially on the internet. They can genuinely operate anywhere in the world. they might need a few servers in or near the UK, but they can easily do most of the work from any other European country. Switzerland and Gibraltar both have very low taxes, and few barriers to business with the EU.
Not sure I agree this is the same with Amazon. Amazon do, at least, have to have warehousing in the UK. Claiming it's a foreign transaction when you pay in UK pounds, and have an item shipped from a UK warehouse to a UK address is a lot harder to justify.
. 'What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later?
This is hardly going to be the most pressing concern. Nobody will take a job for a month just for a free piece of tech. For the company, the cost of salary and overheads for that employee is going to be a bigger concern - few employees start of profitable; there's a ramp up time.
If it's a real problem then ask the employee to return the device.
But the food itself is carbon neutral. As much carbon was absorbed then it was growing as you breathe out. The only carbon cost is that extra required by the equipment to grow and deliver it.
A reasonable person of average intelligence would be able to identify the sort of material that most people would find offensive.
I realise it's difficult to understand the viewpoint of other people if you have low level autism, but allow me to assure you, that most neurotypicals are actually quite able to do this.
I'm not quite sure how you'd react to someone loitering outside a school, distributing free hard core porn to all the kids.
I guess that would have to be seen as okay under a strict freedom of speech principle, but I have to say I'd be a little troubled by it. I am curious what would happen though. I do invite you to do this.
Requiring organisations that offer a free public service to take reasonable measures to ensure they comply with community standards isn't exactly government censorship though.
You'd be able to get a pretty broad consensus from the populace over the majority, with a lot of grey areas where most people wouldn't care if it was blocked or not.
The UK already has guidelines about when inappropriate content is permitted to be broadcast in the UK. I imagine this would use similar criteria.
Most of this can be done with a different PC though. Keep the XP machine around for the specialised software. Use sneakernet if files need to be transferred. This is actually a fairly common practice.
Of course it's possible the software itself needs an internet connection. Some software needs it purely to connect to a licence server in which case the suggestion is useless, but it's worth considering.
The entire system is simply a platform to run the software on. As long as she can buy a replacement XP computer (and the licence allows the software to be transferred) then you just swap it out as a component.
Seems there will have to be a few design compromises
The rotors need a drive mechanism. This is dead weight when in level flight.
The rotors will need to be symmetrical, making them less efficient as wings and as rotors.
The whole system is more complex than either a plane or a helicopter. Makes building and maintaining it more expensive.
What are the advantages over a vectored thrust approach?
Slashdot Mirror
They could do that. But they need to know who will buy it, how much they'll pay for it, and how many customers they'll have.
A VC doesn't care what it is. It could be a CD of killer tunes, or a skyscraper. What they care about is whether they'll actually make money from it. To convince them that they will, the pitcher needs to show them the market.
Google's policy has always been "don't be evil". Not "do no evil". This is substantially different. It gives them a lot of leeway to do some evil stuff, and still be subjectively non-evil.
Seriously, I saw this last week, before the Inquirer got their mitts on it. It was debunked in the first comment.
That's a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
So, I take it, since this was at school, she had adult supervision, and she'd confirmed the safety precautions were carried out.
So why did the supervisor not say anything? I mean there was one, right? She wasn't just blowing shit up for kicks?
The studios should be charged with fraud as well though.
Looking at the examples, it seems the studios often settle or lose when they are sued.
Here's a techdirt article on the practice. I think the main reason it's still happening is that usually, those with the resources to sue are also savvy enough to ask for a percentage of gross.
Honestly though, if a company decided to shift profits to another company in order to avoid paying shareholders, this would be considered outright fraud.
For some reason tax evasion doesn't have the same criteria.
Google is very tricky to deal with because they do operate essentially on the internet. They can genuinely operate anywhere in the world. they might need a few servers in or near the UK, but they can easily do most of the work from any other European country. Switzerland and Gibraltar both have very low taxes, and few barriers to business with the EU.
Not sure I agree this is the same with Amazon. Amazon do, at least, have to have warehousing in the UK. Claiming it's a foreign transaction when you pay in UK pounds, and have an item shipped from a UK warehouse to a UK address is a lot harder to justify.
This is hardly going to be the most pressing concern. Nobody will take a job for a month just for a free piece of tech. For the company, the cost of salary and overheads for that employee is going to be a bigger concern - few employees start of profitable; there's a ramp up time.
If it's a real problem then ask the employee to return the device.
Nope. The fact that the loss is partially mitigated by the CD levy doesn't automatically make it legal.
If there is explicit legislation making an exception to copyright for CDs then it's legal but that has nothing to do with the levy.
But the food itself is carbon neutral. As much carbon was absorbed then it was growing as you breathe out. The only carbon cost is that extra required by the equipment to grow and deliver it.
The internet does exist in real life.
A reasonable person of average intelligence would be able to identify the sort of material that most people would find offensive.
I realise it's difficult to understand the viewpoint of other people if you have low level autism, but allow me to assure you, that most neurotypicals are actually quite able to do this.
I'm not quite sure how you'd react to someone loitering outside a school, distributing free hard core porn to all the kids.
I guess that would have to be seen as okay under a strict freedom of speech principle, but I have to say I'd be a little troubled by it. I am curious what would happen though. I do invite you to do this.
Requiring organisations that offer a free public service to take reasonable measures to ensure they comply with community standards isn't exactly government censorship though.
Usually, this sort of thing is called "regulation". Pretty common really. Most countries have laws.
Unacceptable - base it on the reasonable man test. Most people will agree on what's unacceptable in this specific instance.
Filter based on a blocking list. These are widely available commercially, and based on community standards.
You'd be able to get a pretty broad consensus from the populace over the majority, with a lot of grey areas where most people wouldn't care if it was blocked or not.
The UK already has guidelines about when inappropriate content is permitted to be broadcast in the UK. I imagine this would use similar criteria.
Is it really that much of a surprise that people don't think the ability to watch porn in public is not a fundamental protected right outside the US?
You don't have to watch them.
It's had its run. Let it go.
Most of this can be done with a different PC though. Keep the XP machine around for the specialised software. Use sneakernet if files need to be transferred. This is actually a fairly common practice.
Of course it's possible the software itself needs an internet connection. Some software needs it purely to connect to a licence server in which case the suggestion is useless, but it's worth considering.
The entire system is simply a platform to run the software on. As long as she can buy a replacement XP computer (and the licence allows the software to be transferred) then you just swap it out as a component.
Seems there will have to be a few design compromises
The rotors need a drive mechanism. This is dead weight when in level flight.
The rotors will need to be symmetrical, making them less efficient as wings and as rotors.
The whole system is more complex than either a plane or a helicopter. Makes building and maintaining it more expensive.
What are the advantages over a vectored thrust approach?
Also, everyone hates Jar Jar, and Disney is a marketing company that is aware of this.