If you tax the business owners, you know exactly who will bear the burden, the people who make a profit from the business.
Great! Let's tax Sergey Brin and Larry Page on their share of Google income.
Oh wait they paid their income tax to the IRS? What about all those other countries where they sucked in all their revenue? No tax back for them huh? What happens when shareholders are shell companies in countries that don't report on their shareholders? Oh the company paid that countries income tax of 0%, how nice.
There must be better ways for companies to help pay for the infrastructure that supports their business, but canning company tax will create a lot more problems IMO
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
If Microsoft designed Win10 to run on 486s and advertised the minimium recommended spec as a 486, then yes you would. This is a compatible OS updates to hardware that was running the OS fine previously, and not so fine afterwards. (I see this myself on my old Galaxy S5).
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
This is the conundrum. Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?
I can't remember the last time my unmanaged home PCs spent time doing updates, because I've set it to do them in the wee hours of the morning. Every once in a while I'll sit down with breakfast and have to login, which is an indication that the PC ran an update.
It's been doing that since the free upgrade to Win10 came out for earlier versions of windows.
I have no idea about how long updates take to download, it does that in the background. Installing? I'm asleep, there's a several hour window of opportunity there.
I get the feeling a lot of these updates are being forced on people that have their computers turned on only when they want to use them, so updates are forced to break into their useful time?
They denied it, then denied it more fully, then followed up with a more clear and forceful denial. If it turns out to be true, the SEC will decide which executives they want to put in prison for material false statements.
Does national security (NSA) override the SEC? If so, it doesn't matter that the companies might be lying about these chips - they won't be prosecuted as that would expose what's going on.
Probably because Microsoft can control all the software I listed except the Android OS, and have been getting the Windows Subsystems for Linux working better anyway so that shouldn't be a problem. How to pickup where you left off on different devices should be covered if all their apps save their state to Azure.
It might work this time because MS licence agreements are all moving to user based subscriptions - which remove much of the compliance headaches of previous solutions - and the capability is (I assume) being added into everything they release.
Of course, that's all an assumption, I have nothing to do with this IRL.
So, what's Microsoft's endgame here? A custom branded version of Android with Microsoft extensions? I'm not really seeing a lot of profit in that.
Seamless access and handover between mobile, local, and hosted apps appears to be the goal, agnostic to the underlying hardware and OS kernel.
* Use O365 apps on your Android phone * Boot your virtual Win365 work desktop, running O365, hosted on Azure, mirrored to whatever display you have nearby - and picking up where you left off - on any device you can configure to boot from Azure stored VMs * Head into work and access a Net-PC or workstation, or dock your phone, and again pickup from where you were before.
Its like buying a really nice Italian sports car with a 1.5 liter turbo in it. Yeah it looks nice, but that's about it.
I dunno, there's some pretty potent beasts out there with an engine like what you're talking about.
But yes, Surface devices for our org are purely for people that get hand held IT support anyway, the rest of us plebs make do with something a lot more capable but less shiny...
Apple and Google are minimising tax, which is legal. Sometimes what they do is found to be illegal - like the incentives that Ireland gave Apple - and which the EU took them to court over and won a chunk of dollars. The intention is to fly as close to the sun as possible without being burnt - it may not be social but they are usually trying to stay legal.
Charities, well they usually start with good intentions and gradually the funds required for admin get bigger and bigger. Greed again you see.
Funny you mentioned Trump though, as it looks like some of his early tax minimisation schemes are going to be tax evasion, which is fraud.
If you define successful as selling all your products at a loss, then yes - Tesla is successful.
Their financial statements are quite clear in that the raw cost of building their cars is less than the income from selling those cars. All the other stuff that's dragging them into the red is the problem, and the reports are not granular enough to determine if each car made is sold at a loss because of other costs like general overheads (a separate line item), whether the expenditure on assembly lines upgrades/installs is dragging it down (no idea where this is represented), or the loss comes from other areas that are car related (like supercharger stations) but not specific to building a car. It's specious to say that they are selling their cars at a loss though...unless you know more detail about the financial statements released?
As someone from another country entirely, those three states (plus Alaska and Hawaii I guess) make up the West Coast. Am I missing something? Are you counting states *not* on the coast?
When I last looked at their financials I couldn't work out what was spending on expanding facilities vs. what was general costs of doing business. They make good margin making cars and that margin plus more is eaten away until they're running negative. Either they: * reign in expansion and generate a profit to pay down some of their debt, or * continue ramping volume without ramping general expenses at the same scale.
Otherwise they're in for a world of hurt - or going to need a big cash injection.
That report shows a gross profit of $2.2B, so the cost to make whatever it is that they're selling is giving them a gross profit margin around 18%. Not bad.
Per last quarter's reporting Tesla lost $17,600 per car they made (loss divided by the number of cars delivered). What do you have that says otherwise? Real, hard numbers. Put them up, link them, define them. Because the Tesla filings say you are wrong.
When you add in all the other things going on, there's no way Tesla will show a profit on paper until they make enough cars to spread out the CAPEX + depreciation and amortisation + SG&A + interest, where the profit margin per car x the number of cars sold exceeds all those costs. Right now it looks like there's an excess of CAPEX scaling up their manufactories to meet demand, so until that tapers off and they take advantage of the extra capability I'd expect them to stay in the red. I don't see any break-up of their SG&A expenditure and I CBF looking (I have no interest either way), so that's about all I can figure out.
On Azure, specially their infrastructure, nobody pays for Windows, so Linux it is. On the desktop, the hardware sellers pay for Windows, no need for Linux there.
Microsoft will soon provide virtual managed desktops running on Azure. Perfect where you already are paying for a Windows Enterprise desktop OS + Office subscription per user - just add your Azure usage charges and you can use whatever old POS (or mobile device with external screen) still runs and connects to the network, and get your inhouse Win10 image delivered anywhere.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
people don't see a point to contribute their tax share since they don't get much out of it
,
That's not very social of these people is it? The whole point is that socialism is like insurance - everyone contributes so that those that need it can draw down on it.
This is pattern well established around post socialistic countries.
ahh so this is what happens when people stop: a - contributing their fair share (tax evasion), and b - not taking more than they should (corruption).
Apple's decision to forgo Qualcomm this year and source all cellular modems from Intel is not responsible for the RF power output limitations in the new iPhone models. The cellular baseband modem is separate from and well upstream of the amplifiers that generate the conducted power and antennas that generate the radiated power being measured in lab testing. ...where is all that power going? Where is it being diminished? The answer lies in antenna gain.
Indeed, deeper analysis of the FCC OET authorization filings shows the underwhelming EIRP figures to be almost entirely products of negative antenna gain.
Office Professional Plus 2019 will be released with Click-to-Run installation technology only. We are not providing MSI as a deployment methodology for Office Professional Plus 2019.
Meh, O365 all the way here. Forced to for security updates & support compliance, otherwise past history would suggest we'd be thinking about moving to v2019 about 2025...
Socialism is a system of government. Socialism is not voluntary. Socialism is not "being nice to people." Socialism is organized, legalized, armed robbery perpetrated by people who tell you they're doing you a favor.
It's all how you look at it. I pay taxes, and those taxes are used in socialist ways: education, aged care, health care, civil infrastructure (roads, rail), national defence, police departments, fire departments, ambulances, subsidised childcare, environmental management, water management, vehicle registrations, navel safety and more. Whew! Well, you know there's a heck of a lot of services provided using those taxes.
Are you saying these services shouldn't be provided by the government?
Or that perhaps just the level of service provision should be under scrutiny?
I look at many of these as preventative services - I'd rather pay a percent of my taxes to educate all children rather than have to feel unsafe due to a high uneducated criminal element. I'd rather have a safe neighbourhood as a result rather than needing a walled in fortress to protect my family and home, or pay for armed security guards. I'd like to know I can let my kids play in a government provided playground and not have to worry about needles or razorblades in the equipment - because that equipment is regularly checked and serviced.
Should I go on? How about knowing that my kids are growing up in a lower lead environment than I did? Less asbestos? Less DDT? Less/no CFCs? Better nutrition through better quality control of food?
How about food safety and environment regulation - do you care about where something is made, whether the jobs are in your town, state, or nation? How about sustainability?
More? The entire Defense department.
All that comes at a cost, and I'd rather have everyone pay so that we get economies of scale rather than try and attempt much of that myself (and fail).
Here in Australia, a number of well-meaning public projects have been derailed because they had loopholes that allowed gaming of the scheme by beneficiaries, or were gamed or abused by insiders. I hope Bezos includes a lot of checks and balances in this scheme.
It's not easy when it's the politicians doing the gaming, on behalf of themselves - either through donations back to their party, or as jobs after they finally get booted out for their blatant corruption and/or incompetence.
But does this really happen in today's world, in large countries?
That's a good question. Lets assume the goal of a state is to act in the interest of their citizens, all or a limited number of them.
; If countries like Germany and France are considered big, then perhaps yes. Even though UK likes to be a bastion of liberalism, they too appear to consider their state sovereignty and public benefit as important concepts..
The problem comes when the 'limited number' is primarily politicians and their donors.
They continue to support coal based power even though not a single energy company is interested in building - or even maintaining - these obsolete power plants.
So Oracle is years behind in their integrations for their cloud offerings? Isn't the integration and simplified management one of the main reasons to go cloud?
Adobe are getting close to integrating all their products into their Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Launcher application, but there's still a few holdouts.
O365 periodically phones home to reactivate itself, and without an active & valid licence should drop into read-only mode. We set our enterprise 365 install to include Visio and Project, which drop into view-only mode after 7 days from first install if the user is not licensed. Pretty handy just for that as we no longer require viewer programs.
According to the article:
The catch is that you can only stay signed in on five devices at once. Meanwhile, Home users can let another person use the productivity suite through their account, with Microsoft bumping up the number of licenses per subscriber from five to six
you will be able to use O365 simultaneously on either 5 or 6 PCs....hmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as these hefty core counts per socket don't end up in my Per Core licensed devices, I should be OK....
If you tax the business owners, you know exactly who will bear the burden, the people who make a profit from the business.
Great! Let's tax Sergey Brin and Larry Page on their share of Google income.
Oh wait they paid their income tax to the IRS? What about all those other countries where they sucked in all their revenue? No tax back for them huh? What happens when shareholders are shell companies in countries that don't report on their shareholders? Oh the company paid that countries income tax of 0%, how nice.
There must be better ways for companies to help pay for the infrastructure that supports their business, but canning company tax will create a lot more problems IMO
>
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
If Microsoft designed Win10 to run on 486s and advertised the minimium recommended spec as a 486, then yes you would.
This is a compatible OS updates to hardware that was running the OS fine previously, and not so fine afterwards. (I see this myself on my old Galaxy S5).
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
This is the conundrum. Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?
Every once in a while I'll sit down with breakfast and have to login, which is an indication that the PC ran an update.
It's been doing that since the free upgrade to Win10 came out for earlier versions of windows.
I have no idea about how long updates take to download, it does that in the background. Installing? I'm asleep, there's a several hour window of opportunity there.
I get the feeling a lot of these updates are being forced on people that have their computers turned on only when they want to use them, so updates are forced to break into their useful time?
They denied it, then denied it more fully, then followed up with a more clear and forceful denial. If it turns out to be true, the SEC will decide which executives they want to put in prison for material false statements.
Does national security (NSA) override the SEC? If so, it doesn't matter that the companies might be lying about these chips - they won't be prosecuted as that would expose what's going on.
It might work this time because MS licence agreements are all moving to user based subscriptions - which remove much of the compliance headaches of previous solutions - and the capability is (I assume) being added into everything they release.
Of course, that's all an assumption, I have nothing to do with this IRL.
So, what's Microsoft's endgame here? A custom branded version of Android with Microsoft extensions? I'm not really seeing a lot of profit in that.
Seamless access and handover between mobile, local, and hosted apps appears to be the goal, agnostic to the underlying hardware and OS kernel.
* Use O365 apps on your Android phone
* Boot your virtual Win365 work desktop, running O365, hosted on Azure, mirrored to whatever display you have nearby - and picking up where you left off - on any device you can configure to boot from Azure stored VMs
* Head into work and access a Net-PC or workstation, or dock your phone, and again pickup from where you were before.
Its like buying a really nice Italian sports car with a 1.5 liter turbo in it. Yeah it looks nice, but that's about it.
I dunno, there's some pretty potent beasts out there with an engine like what you're talking about.
But yes, Surface devices for our org are purely for people that get hand held IT support anyway, the rest of us plebs make do with something a lot more capable but less shiny...
Charities, well they usually start with good intentions and gradually the funds required for admin get bigger and bigger. Greed again you see.
Funny you mentioned Trump though, as it looks like some of his early tax minimisation schemes are going to be tax evasion, which is fraud.
If you define successful as selling all your products at a loss, then yes - Tesla is successful.
Their financial statements are quite clear in that the raw cost of building their cars is less than the income from selling those cars. All the other stuff that's dragging them into the red is the problem, and the reports are not granular enough to determine if each car made is sold at a loss because of other costs like general overheads (a separate line item), whether the expenditure on assembly lines upgrades/installs is dragging it down (no idea where this is represented), or the loss comes from other areas that are car related (like supercharger stations) but not specific to building a car.
It's specious to say that they are selling their cars at a loss though...unless you know more detail about the financial statements released?
As someone from another country entirely, those three states (plus Alaska and Hawaii I guess) make up the West Coast. Am I missing something?
Are you counting states *not* on the coast?
* reign in expansion and generate a profit to pay down some of their debt, or
* continue ramping volume without ramping general expenses at the same scale.
Otherwise they're in for a world of hurt - or going to need a big cash injection.
So what financial report shows them making money?
That report shows a gross profit of $2.2B, so the cost to make whatever it is that they're selling is giving them a gross profit margin around 18%. Not bad.
Per last quarter's reporting Tesla lost $17,600 per car they made (loss divided by the number of cars delivered). What do you have that says otherwise? Real, hard numbers. Put them up, link them, define them. Because the Tesla filings say you are wrong.
When you add in all the other things going on, there's no way Tesla will show a profit on paper until they make enough cars to spread out the CAPEX + depreciation and amortisation + SG&A + interest, where the profit margin per car x the number of cars sold exceeds all those costs. Right now it looks like there's an excess of CAPEX scaling up their manufactories to meet demand, so until that tapers off and they take advantage of the extra capability I'd expect them to stay in the red. I don't see any break-up of their SG&A expenditure and I CBF looking (I have no interest either way), so that's about all I can figure out.
Not happening.
On Azure, specially their infrastructure, nobody pays for Windows, so Linux it is. On the desktop, the hardware sellers pay for Windows, no need for Linux there.
Microsoft will soon provide virtual managed desktops running on Azure. Perfect where you already are paying for a Windows Enterprise desktop OS + Office subscription per user - just add your Azure usage charges and you can use whatever old POS (or mobile device with external screen) still runs and connects to the network, and get your inhouse Win10 image delivered anywhere. https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
people don't see a point to contribute their tax share since they don't get much out of it
, That's not very social of these people is it? The whole point is that socialism is like insurance - everyone contributes so that those that need it can draw down on it.
This is pattern well established around post socialistic countries.
ahh so this is what happens when people stop:
a - contributing their fair share (tax evasion), and
b - not taking more than they should (corruption).
Pretty sure that's called 'greed'.
These people had an iPhone with a superior Qualcomm modem before. Now they have a cheaper one from Intel. Enjoy,
It's almost certainly this.
https://www.wiwavelength.com/2...
Apple's decision to forgo Qualcomm this year and source all cellular modems from Intel is not responsible for the RF power output limitations in the new iPhone models. The cellular baseband modem is separate from and well upstream of the amplifiers that generate the conducted power and antennas that generate the radiated power being measured in lab testing.
...where is all that power going? Where is it being diminished? The answer lies in antenna gain.
Indeed, deeper analysis of the FCC OET authorization filings shows the underwhelming EIRP figures to be almost entirely products of negative antenna gain.
Office Professional Plus 2019 will be released with Click-to-Run installation technology only. We are not providing MSI as a deployment methodology for Office Professional Plus 2019.
Meh, O365 all the way here. Forced to for security updates & support compliance, otherwise past history would suggest we'd be thinking about moving to v2019 about 2025...
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. There's no one else challenging Intel for supremacy - unless AMDs EPYC architecture does the job?
Socialism is a system of government. Socialism is not voluntary. Socialism is not "being nice to people." Socialism is organized, legalized, armed robbery perpetrated by people who tell you they're doing you a favor.
It's all how you look at it. I pay taxes, and those taxes are used in socialist ways: education, aged care, health care, civil infrastructure (roads, rail), national defence, police departments, fire departments, ambulances, subsidised childcare, environmental management, water management, vehicle registrations, navel safety and more. Whew! Well, you know there's a heck of a lot of services provided using those taxes.
Are you saying these services shouldn't be provided by the government?
Or that perhaps just the level of service provision should be under scrutiny?
I look at many of these as preventative services - I'd rather pay a percent of my taxes to educate all children rather than have to feel unsafe due to a high uneducated criminal element. I'd rather have a safe neighbourhood as a result rather than needing a walled in fortress to protect my family and home, or pay for armed security guards. I'd like to know I can let my kids play in a government provided playground and not have to worry about needles or razorblades in the equipment - because that equipment is regularly checked and serviced.
Should I go on?
How about knowing that my kids are growing up in a lower lead environment than I did? Less asbestos? Less DDT? Less/no CFCs? Better nutrition through better quality control of food?
How about food safety and environment regulation - do you care about where something is made, whether the jobs are in your town, state, or nation? How about sustainability?
More? The entire Defense department.
All that comes at a cost, and I'd rather have everyone pay so that we get economies of scale rather than try and attempt much of that myself (and fail).
Here in Australia, a number of well-meaning public projects have been derailed because they had loopholes that allowed gaming of the scheme by beneficiaries, or were gamed or abused by insiders. I hope Bezos includes a lot of checks and balances in this scheme.
It's not easy when it's the politicians doing the gaming, on behalf of themselves - either through donations back to their party, or as jobs after they finally get booted out for their blatant corruption and/or incompetence.
To name a few:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
https://www.news.com.au/financ...
https://www.brisbanetimes.com....
https://www.brisbanetimes.com....
https://www.computerworld.com....
This is News for Nerds, it doesn't have to be better. The additional complexity to do the same thing in a potentially much smaller package helps.
But does this really happen in today's world, in large countries?
That's a good question. Lets assume the goal of a state is to act in the interest of their citizens, all or a limited number of them.
; If countries like Germany and France are considered big, then perhaps yes. Even though UK likes to be a bastion of liberalism, they too appear to consider their state sovereignty and public benefit as important concepts..
The problem comes when the 'limited number' is primarily politicians and their donors.
Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market?
Our now PM is the same minister that brought a lump of coal into the House of Representatives:
https://www.theguardian.com/au...
They continue to support coal based power even though not a single energy company is interested in building - or even maintaining - these obsolete power plants.
Adobe are getting close to integrating all their products into their Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Launcher application, but there's still a few holdouts.
We set our enterprise 365 install to include Visio and Project, which drop into view-only mode after 7 days from first install if the user is not licensed. Pretty handy just for that as we no longer require viewer programs.
According to the article:
The catch is that you can only stay signed in on five devices at once.
Meanwhile, Home users can let another person use the productivity suite through their account, with Microsoft bumping up the number of licenses per subscriber from five to six
you will be able to use O365 simultaneously on either 5 or 6 PCs....hmmm.