No, I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't be paying more taxes. Not just Apple, but many large, profitable companies that don't pay much or any tax should pay more.
However, the problem is NOT WITH APPLE. It's with the laws that let them do this. Fix the damn laws, don't blame the companies that use the current laws to ensure they do THEIR job properly (i.e. make money).
If you don't like it, change the law. More specifically, if the taxpayers (and politicians) in that area don't like it, then they should change the law. Otherwise, what's the fucking story here?
Apple - nor any corporation - is not a charity. It's not their job to pay more taxes than they legally have to. Their job is specifically the opposite - generate as much value for shareholders as they can.
Any company that pays more than they have to by law should be questioned, or the shareholders should revolt. Actually... I can't think of any example of one that does, intentionally at least.
So - the issue is NOT with Apple - TFS even says that the Australian tax office agrees this is all above board - but the issue is with their tax system. It's structured to allow that, intentionally or not. There are all kinds of tax incentives in the world, and they're all there to encourage the right mix of business development and growth that the region needs. Essentially, tax is used as an incentive to offset the disadvantages that would otherwise naturally be there (labor cost, non-ideal locations, skill levels, etc.).
Don't be mad at Apple... EVERY company does this. Haters be hat'n, I guess.:)
I'm curious what qualifies as a medical reason to avoid the scanners? I opt out of them always, but it'd be nice to be able to at least occasionally avoid the pat downs too...
I travel FREQUENTLY, and always opt out of the naked scanners at the airport... partially because of safety concerns, partly because of my view that they're security theatre and ineffective, and partly in protest. After all - as inconvenient as a hand pat-down is, I KNOW that won't give me cancer in 20 years. 4-5 scans a week or more over 20 years... what's that going to do to me?
I'd actually say that being a native English speaker is a DISADVANTAGE overall. You come to believe that the world must speak in your language, and never make any personal investment in learning the language (or culture) of another land. I am a native English speaker, and felt "disabled" when I live in Europe amongst people that routinely spoke 4-5 languages fluently (including English). Simply growing up with exposure to those languages is enough to help diversify their brain... and in my experience, their outlook on the world as well.
The world is not nearly as US-centric or English-centric as most of us believe.
Why not just shuffle anyone detected cheating into a separate game room? If they're paying customers, then they can all cheat together, and everyone wins.
I'm guessing that an AI-type search would be MUCH more computationally intensive than a Google PageRank search (just guessing). I'm curious how the cost of providing that search would affect the profitability or commercial viability of using Watson technology for mass searching.
Remember, to fuel a single searcher on Jeopardy it required racks of equipment. When you're making a few pennies a search - maybe - it might be some time until that equation makes sense.
It was one of my favorite lines, as Johnny pulls out a revolver with a barrel about 3 feet long: "It shoots through schools..."
Although clearly inappropriate, I'm disgusted that it's now illegal to say certain words... even in jest. This country is falling apart faster and faster.
Gee... if content is easy to access and affordable, then (most) people won't pirate it. People that still do would have done it no matter what - they're not your customers and you're NOT losing money by them doing so. (sure, it's not fair, yada yada)
But - when content is not easily and affordably available (say, because you "removed content from the web to protect it from piracy"), that's exactly what ENCOURAGES normal people to consider pirating in the first place. Those ARE their "customers" who would have paid a reasonable price for content that they can use in their preferred manner. They're shooting themselves in the foot, which is hardly surprising.
Who cares what equipment they're using... A piece of crap camera in a skilled photog's hands can still get a great photo.
The real story (and tragedy) is they think that non-pro photographers (writers and amateurs) can do the job. Watch the results - photo quality (content wise, maybe not just technical wise) will plummet. Maybe they think that doesn't matter, who knows. And for things like sports, they'll have to use wire service photos now for sure. You can get great photos from AP/Reuters, but they'll be the same photos as other news outlets.
Well, quite honestly, the answer is "YES" to all of the above. The TOTAL environmental impact of each option, through their entire life cycle, should be compared. If you're only looking at one piece or several pieces, then what's the point? It's like saying "Hey, I can light and heat my house with fire and use no electricity, therefore it has NO carbon footprint!"... without asking what you're burning to get that heat/light. If it's wood... you could argue it's carbon-neutral (if it's replanted, yada yada), but if it's oil you couldn't.
So, as complex as the question is, you really need an EXHAUSTIVE comparison for any of these arguments to hold water. The point about batteries though was that most rely on exotic heavy metals to deliver the power/weight/charge/discharge performance we all want, and those are particularly harmful on the environment - both from a mining perspective as well as a disposal/pollution perspective.
I haven't read TFA of course, but does it include the lifetime environmental impact of the battery packs? (mining through disposal) That's what usually has me skeptical of today's electric vehicles.
"The time before the scanners" was last week for me. Flying back from Israel, there are no scanners, and no pat downs. But, even though they're one of the most at-risk for terrorist attacks, the have put in place actual security instead of the theater that passes for security here. They profile. They do background checks. They do risk assessment.
I refuse to use the scanners in the USA, partially due to the unproven safety levels (albeit likely much better with the "newer" ones instead of the backscatter xray ones), and partially due to privacy concerns - or at least the privacy implications.
Or if they want to distribute the final file for reference purposes, simply distribute it at lower resolution than what you require the students to do. Problem solved.
And if you followed the story, his bust in NZ was NOT above board. The FBI coerced them into doing it, and taking many many shortcuts and liberties along the way, embarrassing the hell out of the NZ government and police. I'd say it's a safe bet they won't do that again. If he does get taken down again, it'll be much more carefully and LEGALLY done - and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).
Mega is different because all the content is client-side encrypted before being uploaded. Mega specifically has no access to the content or ability to filter it, and hence no responsibility for it. I'm sure they'll comply with takedown notices too. The liability is on the user, as it should be - otherwise the Cloud business model is already dead.
So, you're saying that a desktop HAS to be vertical? What happened to thinking out of the box? Disappointing, Tim!~
I can fully imagine a 20-24" touch screen lying on my desktop, facing up (maybe angled 10-15 degrees towards me), where my keyboard is right now. That'd be a pretty natural interface. If it had finger touch, plus a more accurate stylus for finer work, it'd be very useful.
Well, printing presses are a tech issue - especially if you're talking about presses capable of printing currency. You underestimate the (intentional) difficulty in printing legal currency and the amazing amount of high-tech involved.
Yes, I work in the printing industry. Maybe it's just fascinating to me from a technology perspective, but most people don't understand what it takes either.
And if they actually agreed, I wouldn't hire them (and I wouldn't actually let them give it to me). If they can be so easily coerced into sharing confidential information and giving up their rights, they don't have the backbone I expect in my employees.
Now, in my job people are given significant authority and responsibility that needs to be safeguarded, so that's a real concern. In other jobs maybe that's not a criteria for hiring decisions.
I don't know how many of you actually remember talking on a TRUE analog phone line, but the experience vs. a digital or VOIP line is amazingly different. Besides the hollow sound of most digital lines (i.e. just about everything today), the biggest issue I have is the frustrating quality of duplex! On most lines it's almost impossible to speak and listen at the same time. On an old analog line that was no problem at all. I find that single issue makes phone conversations a pain in the ass - you can't interject, agree with a "yeah" without interrupting, etc.
If you add to that the delay that's present on most digital calls, even when local, it makes the phone a crappy form of communication.
I lament the old analog line for true phone conversations.
Am I alone in this - at least amongst those of us that actually have experienced true analog (end to end) phone service?
The moment I have to sit and listen to the guy next to / behind / in front / etc. of me talk all flight long on his cell phone is the moment I stop flying. Cell phone usage should still be banned unless people can fully embrace the Japanese culture around public phone usage (i.e. go hide somewhere people can't hear you, and then still whisper and cover the phone).
Slashdot Mirror
And there are others... not in the car industry though, and probably never really broadcast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(NSFW, sorry)
No, I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't be paying more taxes. Not just Apple, but many large, profitable companies that don't pay much or any tax should pay more.
However, the problem is NOT WITH APPLE. It's with the laws that let them do this. Fix the damn laws, don't blame the companies that use the current laws to ensure they do THEIR job properly (i.e. make money).
Great... then prosecute them.
If you can't, then it's legal.
If you don't like it, change the law. More specifically, if the taxpayers (and politicians) in that area don't like it, then they should change the law. Otherwise, what's the fucking story here?
Apple - nor any corporation - is not a charity. It's not their job to pay more taxes than they legally have to. Their job is specifically the opposite - generate as much value for shareholders as they can.
Any company that pays more than they have to by law should be questioned, or the shareholders should revolt. Actually... I can't think of any example of one that does, intentionally at least.
So - the issue is NOT with Apple - TFS even says that the Australian tax office agrees this is all above board - but the issue is with their tax system. It's structured to allow that, intentionally or not. There are all kinds of tax incentives in the world, and they're all there to encourage the right mix of business development and growth that the region needs. Essentially, tax is used as an incentive to offset the disadvantages that would otherwise naturally be there (labor cost, non-ideal locations, skill levels, etc.).
Don't be mad at Apple... EVERY company does this. Haters be hat'n, I guess. :)
I'm curious what qualifies as a medical reason to avoid the scanners? I opt out of them always, but it'd be nice to be able to at least occasionally avoid the pat downs too...
Care to share your ailment?
I travel FREQUENTLY, and always opt out of the naked scanners at the airport... partially because of safety concerns, partly because of my view that they're security theatre and ineffective, and partly in protest. After all - as inconvenient as a hand pat-down is, I KNOW that won't give me cancer in 20 years. 4-5 scans a week or more over 20 years... what's that going to do to me?
Question: do the TSA agents hate me? :)
I'd actually say that being a native English speaker is a DISADVANTAGE overall. You come to believe that the world must speak in your language, and never make any personal investment in learning the language (or culture) of another land. I am a native English speaker, and felt "disabled" when I live in Europe amongst people that routinely spoke 4-5 languages fluently (including English). Simply growing up with exposure to those languages is enough to help diversify their brain... and in my experience, their outlook on the world as well.
The world is not nearly as US-centric or English-centric as most of us believe.
Cool... anyone tried it on Raspberry Pi?
Why not just shuffle anyone detected cheating into a separate game room? If they're paying customers, then they can all cheat together, and everyone wins.
Well, maybe it's not a "crawler", but if it copies all outbound traffic it does essentially the same thing while leaving no footprints.
Chew on that for a while. :)
I'm guessing that an AI-type search would be MUCH more computationally intensive than a Google PageRank search (just guessing). I'm curious how the cost of providing that search would affect the profitability or commercial viability of using Watson technology for mass searching.
Remember, to fuel a single searcher on Jeopardy it required racks of equipment. When you're making a few pennies a search - maybe - it might be some time until that equation makes sense.
It was one of my favorite lines, as Johnny pulls out a revolver with a barrel about 3 feet long: "It shoots through schools..."
Although clearly inappropriate, I'm disgusted that it's now illegal to say certain words... even in jest. This country is falling apart faster and faster.
Gee... if content is easy to access and affordable, then (most) people won't pirate it. People that still do would have done it no matter what - they're not your customers and you're NOT losing money by them doing so. (sure, it's not fair, yada yada)
But - when content is not easily and affordably available (say, because you "removed content from the web to protect it from piracy"), that's exactly what ENCOURAGES normal people to consider pirating in the first place. Those ARE their "customers" who would have paid a reasonable price for content that they can use in their preferred manner. They're shooting themselves in the foot, which is hardly surprising.
I don't see the idiocy stopping any time soon...
Who cares what equipment they're using... A piece of crap camera in a skilled photog's hands can still get a great photo.
The real story (and tragedy) is they think that non-pro photographers (writers and amateurs) can do the job. Watch the results - photo quality (content wise, maybe not just technical wise) will plummet. Maybe they think that doesn't matter, who knows. And for things like sports, they'll have to use wire service photos now for sure. You can get great photos from AP/Reuters, but they'll be the same photos as other news outlets.
Sad sad, and short-sighted decision IMHO
Madcow
Well, quite honestly, the answer is "YES" to all of the above. The TOTAL environmental impact of each option, through their entire life cycle, should be compared. If you're only looking at one piece or several pieces, then what's the point? It's like saying "Hey, I can light and heat my house with fire and use no electricity, therefore it has NO carbon footprint!"... without asking what you're burning to get that heat/light. If it's wood... you could argue it's carbon-neutral (if it's replanted, yada yada), but if it's oil you couldn't.
So, as complex as the question is, you really need an EXHAUSTIVE comparison for any of these arguments to hold water. The point about batteries though was that most rely on exotic heavy metals to deliver the power/weight/charge/discharge performance we all want, and those are particularly harmful on the environment - both from a mining perspective as well as a disposal/pollution perspective.
MadCow.
I haven't read TFA of course, but does it include the lifetime environmental impact of the battery packs? (mining through disposal) That's what usually has me skeptical of today's electric vehicles.
MadCow.
"The time before the scanners" was last week for me. Flying back from Israel, there are no scanners, and no pat downs. But, even though they're one of the most at-risk for terrorist attacks, the have put in place actual security instead of the theater that passes for security here. They profile. They do background checks. They do risk assessment.
I refuse to use the scanners in the USA, partially due to the unproven safety levels (albeit likely much better with the "newer" ones instead of the backscatter xray ones), and partially due to privacy concerns - or at least the privacy implications.
MadCow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goWuvXz1qC4
Yes, they cook a turkey with flashlights in 2.5 hours. 6 flashlights. (not Fleshlights!).
MadCow.
Or if they want to distribute the final file for reference purposes, simply distribute it at lower resolution than what you require the students to do. Problem solved.
MadCow.
And if you followed the story, his bust in NZ was NOT above board. The FBI coerced them into doing it, and taking many many shortcuts and liberties along the way, embarrassing the hell out of the NZ government and police. I'd say it's a safe bet they won't do that again. If he does get taken down again, it'll be much more carefully and LEGALLY done - and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).
Mega is different because all the content is client-side encrypted before being uploaded. Mega specifically has no access to the content or ability to filter it, and hence no responsibility for it. I'm sure they'll comply with takedown notices too. The liability is on the user, as it should be - otherwise the Cloud business model is already dead.
MadCow.
"Touch screens don't want to be vertical"...
So, you're saying that a desktop HAS to be vertical? What happened to thinking out of the box? Disappointing, Tim!~
I can fully imagine a 20-24" touch screen lying on my desktop, facing up (maybe angled 10-15 degrees towards me), where my keyboard is right now. That'd be a pretty natural interface. If it had finger touch, plus a more accurate stylus for finer work, it'd be very useful.
MadCow.
Well, printing presses are a tech issue - especially if you're talking about presses capable of printing currency. You underestimate the (intentional) difficulty in printing legal currency and the amazing amount of high-tech involved.
Yes, I work in the printing industry. Maybe it's just fascinating to me from a technology perspective, but most people don't understand what it takes either.
MadCow.
And if they actually agreed, I wouldn't hire them (and I wouldn't actually let them give it to me). If they can be so easily coerced into sharing confidential information and giving up their rights, they don't have the backbone I expect in my employees.
Now, in my job people are given significant authority and responsibility that needs to be safeguarded, so that's a real concern. In other jobs maybe that's not a criteria for hiring decisions.
MadCow.
I don't know how many of you actually remember talking on a TRUE analog phone line, but the experience vs. a digital or VOIP line is amazingly different. Besides the hollow sound of most digital lines (i.e. just about everything today), the biggest issue I have is the frustrating quality of duplex! On most lines it's almost impossible to speak and listen at the same time. On an old analog line that was no problem at all. I find that single issue makes phone conversations a pain in the ass - you can't interject, agree with a "yeah" without interrupting, etc.
If you add to that the delay that's present on most digital calls, even when local, it makes the phone a crappy form of communication.
I lament the old analog line for true phone conversations.
Am I alone in this - at least amongst those of us that actually have experienced true analog (end to end) phone service?
MadCow.
The moment I have to sit and listen to the guy next to / behind / in front / etc. of me talk all flight long on his cell phone is the moment I stop flying. Cell phone usage should still be banned unless people can fully embrace the Japanese culture around public phone usage (i.e. go hide somewhere people can't hear you, and then still whisper and cover the phone).
MadCow.