You mean the FBI and police sat down with business owners to talk about a large-ish scale protest outside their premises directed at them? Screw that, if there's a mob outside your front door, why would you ever want advice and reassurances from police, it's not like it's their job or anything! Police drawing up plans in case the OWS potentially resorted to criminal or terrorist behaviour ? How dare they! I demand a police service that doesn't prepare for any eventuality and is always taken by surprise! It is rather shocking that the police didn't inform the leaders of an organisation that prided itself in having no leaders that they had vague threats of violence against them. Imaginary people have the right to information too!
There's a big difference between drawing up contingency plans and acting on them for no legitimate reason.
I mean seriously this reeks of paranoia. There's a very valid reason for banks cracking down on OWS. In the USA there are really only two ways to legally create a bank account. One is as an individual the other is through an incorporation. Individuals can obviously have multiple co-signers such as in a family. And, incorporated entities can be businesses, non-profits, cities, etc... OWS organized itself as the antithesis of any incorporated entity. There were no official leaders, no board or leadership who was legally responsible for filing taxes, nothing. Their use of banks to collect donations, organize and pool funds, and then disperse them therefore broke pretty much all the laws that were put in place to stop groups like organized crime and terrorists from utilizing banks in the same way. The folks who work at banks can lose their jobs and face criminal prosecution if they don't report activity that looks exactly like what OWS was doing with the bank accounts they were opening. So please, use your brain and think things through before you post an article like this that simply reeks of paranoia. You may not like the system or the laws, but they exist, and the banks and FBI are simply following them.
You confuse bullshit justifications with valid reasons.
If bank accounts were opened, then there must have been individuals or companies opening them otherwise said banks would never have opened them in the first place.
If there were tax issues, then those who opened the bank accounts could be investigated for such.
You say "Their use of banks to collect donations, organize and pool funds, and then disperse them therefore broke pretty much all the laws that were put in place to stop groups like organized crime and terrorists from utilizing banks in the same way"
Using banks 'in the same' way as organized crime and terrorist organizations does not make an organization either criminel or terrorist. If it did then political parties would also qualify.
The reality is that a peaceful movement exercising the American constitutional First Amendment right to assembly was persecuted by the government and private industry (go Pinkertons!), denied the constitutional right to assembly and aggressively if not violently broken up.
It's cliche but it's true - you're not paranoid if they are actually out to get you.
Seems logical to me. Ireland is happy to get 4 million that they wouldn't otherwise get at all. Ireland's simply undercutting other governments. Makes sense.
But if you want to collect tax dollars from companies that operate in the.U.S.A., you might want to assess their global revenues, period. Global companies paying global rates makes perfect sense.
Otherwise, you're looking at a future without tax revenue. Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
On the other hand, you can look at this as simple capitalism. Ireland made a better offer. You lost. Suck it up, or learn to compete.
Either way, don't bring ethics into it. You're talking about taking someone's money for "the greater good". And you're forcing them to participate. If you're going to discuss ethics, you might want to start with your own.
Especially as humans are already taxed on global revenue.
If you let the lowest tax country win then no corporation anywhere will actually pay any tax.
$424 billion USD in the US buys much, much, much less than $220 billion USD in China.
If you had a value for what 1 USD is worth in China with regard to purchasing power, relative to what 1 USD is worth in the US then you could make a realistic comparison.
China passed the US in R&D and military spending long ago.
In effect you propose to lower the standard of living in the western world to be on a par with that of the eastern world.
Uh, no. You make some baseless assumptions and put words in my mouth. If you disagree with my conclusions do so, but saying I said "xxx" is offensive.
I am not putting words in your mouth I am stating my interpretation of what you are saying thus the use of "In effect" as opposed to "You said".
You assume that salaries in the east will increase, which they will - but not to anything near the point where western salaries are today
I bet you this will turn out to be false. the "east" is a broad term covering billions of people. Some countries will do very well, and I bet you there will be a substantial middle class in both China and India that will rival the U.S. middle class. Why do you think the U.S. is so special? Is there a racist undertone?
The difference is in the form of government which allows worker’s rights and has nothing to do with race, color, religion or any such factor. Western countries (again a wide grouping for the convenience of not listing them) have protection for their workers that Eastern and African countries do not have and are not likely to have anytime in the foreseeable future.
And even if it doesn't increase to West levels, it doesn't matter. Productivity does matter. If the U.S. invests in its people, in education and in infrastructure so that it is three times as efficient as China, then it can afford a 3:1 salary ratio. The markets will help to enforce that. Also, don't get caught up on 3:1, I made up the number. If China becomes more efficient than the U.S., it will have an income premium in those areas. It isn't complex, and we've been seeing it happen for at least 60 years in Asia already.
The US is investing less than usual in education and infrastructure because it's broke. This will continue due to the shrinking tax base due to the increase in unemployment and the decrease in wages due to job shifting and automation.
Shanghai has the best education in the world. China and India overall already rival American education.
Productivity matters when you're talking about roughly similar costs of employment. a 3:1 ratio is irrelevant when the cost of labor is 1:300.
The only thing that could be counted on would be supply and demand - and the supply of labor will continue to outstrip demand in the east which will keep labor rates suppressed.
What you have said above is indicative of your not understanding economics. By definition, supply cannot outstrip demand or vice versa (this was a favorite rant of a couple of economics professors I knew or took classes from). If you don't get something fundamental like this, I'm not sure you get the more complex pieces.
Let's review that for you then. Prices are set based on supply and demand curves, the price being set where the curves meet. When you have a high level of supply and demand remains low, prices drop. As there is a high level of supply of labor in the east, relative to demand, wages will remain low.
Labor rates have been increasing in China and will continue to. Over the past decade or so, labor has gone from under a couple bucks a day to around $4/hour in some parts of China. This is even more true if you factor in China's currency manipulation -- labor price is much higher than China is allowing it to be. I expect the boom to turn to bust, followed by a more reasonable increase for a few decades
Some references would be appreciated. That being said, I'll note that you say "in some parts of China" indicating that you are not talking about the overall population, nor are you taking into account the inflation that is experienced due to the sustained high level of growth. I have no doubt that salaries are increasing in China but as the ma
You state: "Other countries will get much richer"
- presumably the countries of the east and africa
"Is it painful? yes."
- presumably for the countries that will get much poorer
"Will there be losers? Yes."
- again, presumably the countries that will get much poorer and the people living in them
You assume that salaries in the east will increase, which they will - but not to anything near the point where western salaries are today. In many cases there are minimal to no worker protection laws, unions or anything else that helps workers. The only thing that could be counted on would be supply and demand - and the supply of labor will continue to outstrip demand in the east which will keep labor rates suppressed.
In effect you propose to lower the standard of living in the western world to be on a par with that of the eastern world.
I don't know what your experience with living in the countries that will get much richer is, but I have lived all around the world and I can tell you that what you appear to be okay with will equate to that which I have stated in the form of questions.
The pain and the loss that will be felt in the west will be a lowering of salary until there is parity between west and east and a subsequent loss of social services due to a much smaller tax base.
It will be similar to the events that happened in the United States. Basically, we used to have a wild difference in median incomes by state. There is still quite a difference, but nothing like existed before the interstate highway system. State importance decreased and more people viewed their identity in terms of country than state.
I see the same thing happening on a global scale. There will be rich countries and poor. Folks in the US are going to have to get used to not being the prima donna by default. Other countries will get much richer. We'll get a much more stable world, and one where country doesn't matter as much as it does today.
Is it painful? yes. Will there be losers? Yes. But I think there will be many more winners than losers.
So you'll be happy to have no social services and scrape by working three or four jobs to compete with Indians and Chinese making a dollar a day?
It isn't about winning the lawsuits necessarily. It's also about delaying the competition 'to market'. The more one player can block the other, the longer they have to establish market share in a given area.
So why not stop off the ecliptic so your 'wave of doom' flies off into intergalactic space, then warp downwards and leave on the far side of the destination system, again throwing the 'wave of doom' off into intergalactic space?
Or is the wave not directional?
Like avoiding hitting the car in front of you by going off the road onto the sidewalk without looking to see if there are pedestrians there?
True but merchants who want to do business in a given country can be forced to pay tax if they want to continue to do business in that country, even if they move their headquarters somewhere else.
Tax law needs to be changed but will not be, due to conflicts of interest in those who make such laws.
instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs....Or reading/posting to Slashdot about it.;)
Presumably people posting on slashdot about such topics have their eyes more open than those who are so into sports they do nothing else and having one's eyes open is necessary before one can actually do anything useful.
Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
They might, if more of said populace were still educated and had their eyes open to what's happening instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed. Additionally, why should there be unsupervised "observers" standing around a polling place and potentially intimidating voters? There are already plenty of limits to regulate campaigning in and around polling places, and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
You are assuming that the legislature was actually democratically elected which is, in fact, what the observers are there to attempt to ensure.
Watching around the world it seems to me that only people fucking with the voting process are afraid to have monitors watching them.
Oh agreed. Definitely. In fact I already knew the answer before writing the guy originally. Any telecom provider located in the US *must* be CALEA compliant. However the entire service will give folks a false sense of security and that's the larger point I was trying to make.
Most speech isn't prohibited today, but political winds change all too often and what may be legal today may become illegal tomorrow.
Just hope and wish folks realize that their calls can and WILL be intercepted no matter what Silent Circle may say on the matter, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 6: Profit!!
You mean the FBI and police sat down with business owners to talk about a large-ish scale protest outside their premises directed at them? Screw that, if there's a mob outside your front door, why would you ever want advice and reassurances from police, it's not like it's their job or anything!
Police drawing up plans in case the OWS potentially resorted to criminal or terrorist behaviour ? How dare they! I demand a police service that doesn't prepare for any eventuality and is always taken by surprise!
It is rather shocking that the police didn't inform the leaders of an organisation that prided itself in having no leaders that they had vague threats of violence against them. Imaginary people have the right to information too!
There's a big difference between drawing up contingency plans and acting on them for no legitimate reason.
I mean seriously this reeks of paranoia. There's a very valid reason for banks cracking down on OWS. In the USA there are really only two ways to legally create a bank account. One is as an individual the other is through an incorporation. Individuals can obviously have multiple co-signers such as in a family. And, incorporated entities can be businesses, non-profits, cities, etc... OWS organized itself as the antithesis of any incorporated entity. There were no official leaders, no board or leadership who was legally responsible for filing taxes, nothing. Their use of banks to collect donations, organize and pool funds, and then disperse them therefore broke pretty much all the laws that were put in place to stop groups like organized crime and terrorists from utilizing banks in the same way. The folks who work at banks can lose their jobs and face criminal prosecution if they don't report activity that looks exactly like what OWS was doing with the bank accounts they were opening. So please, use your brain and think things through before you post an article like this that simply reeks of paranoia. You may not like the system or the laws, but they exist, and the banks and FBI are simply following them.
You confuse bullshit justifications with valid reasons.
If bank accounts were opened, then there must have been individuals or companies opening them otherwise said banks would never have opened them in the first place.
If there were tax issues, then those who opened the bank accounts could be investigated for such.
You say "Their use of banks to collect donations, organize and pool funds, and then disperse them therefore broke pretty much all the laws that were put in place to stop groups like organized crime and terrorists from utilizing banks in the same way"
Using banks 'in the same' way as organized crime and terrorist organizations does not make an organization either criminel or terrorist. If it did then political parties would also qualify.
The reality is that a peaceful movement exercising the American constitutional First Amendment right to assembly was persecuted by the government and private industry (go Pinkertons!), denied the constitutional right to assembly and aggressively if not violently broken up.
It's cliche but it's true - you're not paranoid if they are actually out to get you.
So the FBI silently investigated people who reasonably could have resorted to lawlessness...
Your definition includes every person alive.
Seems logical to me. Ireland is happy to get 4 million that they wouldn't otherwise get at all. Ireland's simply undercutting other governments. Makes sense.
But if you want to collect tax dollars from companies that operate in the .U.S.A., you might want to assess their global revenues, period. Global companies paying global rates makes perfect sense.
Otherwise, you're looking at a future without tax revenue. Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
On the other hand, you can look at this as simple capitalism. Ireland made a better offer. You lost. Suck it up, or learn to compete.
Either way, don't bring ethics into it. You're talking about taking someone's money for "the greater good". And you're forcing them to participate. If you're going to discuss ethics, you might want to start with your own.
Especially as humans are already taxed on global revenue.
If you let the lowest tax country win then no corporation anywhere will actually pay any tax.
$424 billion USD in the US buys much, much, much less than $220 billion USD in China.
If you had a value for what 1 USD is worth in China with regard to purchasing power, relative to what 1 USD is worth in the US then you could make a realistic comparison.
China passed the US in R&D and military spending long ago.
In effect you propose to lower the standard of living in the western world to be on a par with that of the eastern world.
Uh, no. You make some baseless assumptions and put words in my mouth. If you disagree with my conclusions do so, but saying I said "xxx" is offensive.
I am not putting words in your mouth I am stating my interpretation of what you are saying thus the use of "In effect" as opposed to "You said".
You assume that salaries in the east will increase, which they will - but not to anything near the point where western salaries are today
I bet you this will turn out to be false. the "east" is a broad term covering billions of people. Some countries will do very well, and I bet you there will be a substantial middle class in both China and India that will rival the U.S. middle class. Why do you think the U.S. is so special? Is there a racist undertone?
The difference is in the form of government which allows worker’s rights and has nothing to do with race, color, religion or any such factor. Western countries (again a wide grouping for the convenience of not listing them) have protection for their workers that Eastern and African countries do not have and are not likely to have anytime in the foreseeable future.
And even if it doesn't increase to West levels, it doesn't matter. Productivity does matter. If the U.S. invests in its people, in education and in infrastructure so that it is three times as efficient as China, then it can afford a 3:1 salary ratio. The markets will help to enforce that. Also, don't get caught up on 3:1, I made up the number. If China becomes more efficient than the U.S., it will have an income premium in those areas. It isn't complex, and we've been seeing it happen for at least 60 years in Asia already.
The US is investing less than usual in education and infrastructure because it's broke. This will continue due to the shrinking tax base due to the increase in unemployment and the decrease in wages due to job shifting and automation.
Shanghai has the best education in the world. China and India overall already rival American education.
Productivity matters when you're talking about roughly similar costs of employment. a 3:1 ratio is irrelevant when the cost of labor is 1:300.
The only thing that could be counted on would be supply and demand - and the supply of labor will continue to outstrip demand in the east which will keep labor rates suppressed.
What you have said above is indicative of your not understanding economics. By definition, supply cannot outstrip demand or vice versa (this was a favorite rant of a couple of economics professors I knew or took classes from). If you don't get something fundamental like this, I'm not sure you get the more complex pieces.
Let's review that for you then. Prices are set based on supply and demand curves, the price being set where the curves meet. When you have a high level of supply and demand remains low, prices drop. As there is a high level of supply of labor in the east, relative to demand, wages will remain low.
Labor rates have been increasing in China and will continue to. Over the past decade or so, labor has gone from under a couple bucks a day to around $4/hour in some parts of China. This is even more true if you factor in China's currency manipulation -- labor price is much higher than China is allowing it to be. I expect the boom to turn to bust, followed by a more reasonable increase for a few decades
Some references would be appreciated. That being said, I'll note that you say "in some parts of China" indicating that you are not talking about the overall population, nor are you taking into account the inflation that is experienced due to the sustained high level of growth. I have no doubt that salaries are increasing in China but as the ma
You state:
"Other countries will get much richer"
- presumably the countries of the east and africa
"Is it painful? yes."
- presumably for the countries that will get much poorer
"Will there be losers? Yes."
- again, presumably the countries that will get much poorer and the people living in them
You assume that salaries in the east will increase, which they will - but not to anything near the point where western salaries are today. In many cases there are minimal to no worker protection laws, unions or anything else that helps workers. The only thing that could be counted on would be supply and demand - and the supply of labor will continue to outstrip demand in the east which will keep labor rates suppressed.
In effect you propose to lower the standard of living in the western world to be on a par with that of the eastern world.
I don't know what your experience with living in the countries that will get much richer is, but I have lived all around the world and I can tell you that what you appear to be okay with will equate to that which I have stated in the form of questions.
The pain and the loss that will be felt in the west will be a lowering of salary until there is parity between west and east and a subsequent loss of social services due to a much smaller tax base.
It will be similar to the events that happened in the United States. Basically, we used to have a wild difference in median incomes by state. There is still quite a difference, but nothing like existed before the interstate highway system. State importance decreased and more people viewed their identity in terms of country than state.
I see the same thing happening on a global scale. There will be rich countries and poor. Folks in the US are going to have to get used to not being the prima donna by default. Other countries will get much richer. We'll get a much more stable world, and one where country doesn't matter as much as it does today.
Is it painful? yes. Will there be losers? Yes. But I think there will be many more winners than losers.
So you'll be happy to have no social services and scrape by working three or four jobs to compete with Indians and Chinese making a dollar a day?
Are you insane?
And who will IBM sell computers to when everyone is making $17K/year???
Corporations
It isn't about winning the lawsuits necessarily. It's also about delaying the competition 'to market'. The more one player can block the other, the longer they have to establish market share in a given area.
So why not stop off the ecliptic so your 'wave of doom' flies off into intergalactic space, then warp downwards and leave on the far side of the destination system, again throwing the 'wave of doom' off into intergalactic space?
Or is the wave not directional?
Like avoiding hitting the car in front of you by going off the road onto the sidewalk without looking to see if there are pedestrians there?
"Merchants have no country."
True but merchants who want to do business in a given country can be forced to pay tax if they want to continue to do business in that country, even if they move their headquarters somewhere else.
Tax law needs to be changed but will not be, due to conflicts of interest in those who make such laws.
Does this mean that my backups to Barracuda Networks cloud service are no longer mine? This would kill cloud services.
No it won't because most users will remain ignorant of this issue.
" As you prepare to wield your Vorpal sword, where do you focus your gaze: at the monster's head or at its tentacle eyes? "
I would choose the eyes as they are presumably a softer target than the head. Doesn't apply to normal human interaction.
There are other entities, though, that while ostracized for being 'Left', 'Socialist', etc. are actually willing to stand up for people's rights.
And where are they on the question of the TSA's approach to airport security? Silent, AFAICT.
Begs the question of if you've actually gone and done any research or you're just throwing it out there.
instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs. ...Or reading/posting to Slashdot about it. ;)
Presumably people posting on slashdot about such topics have their eyes more open than those who are so into sports they do nothing else and having one's eyes open is necessary before one can actually do anything useful.
...one of them would jump right up to fund fighting her case all the way to the Supreme Court. What the hell, lunch money.
But they won't of course, because you can't be a decent person and be a billionaire.
If you wait for the rich to step up and save you from the powerful, you're going to be waiting a long time.
There are other entities, though, that while ostracized for being 'Left', 'Socialist', etc. are actually willing to stand up for people's rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_organizations_based_in_the_United_States
Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
It's the only way they can recruit TSA agents?
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
They might, if more of said populace were still educated and had their eyes open to what's happening instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.
In terms of elections we now have less credibility than Venezuela.
It took real effort to break down confidence in the fairness of U.S. elections within 10 years.
For me it was within eight years for two George W. elections. I'm not even bothering to vote this go round because it's such obvious bullshit.
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed. Additionally, why should there be unsupervised "observers" standing around a polling place and potentially intimidating voters? There are already plenty of limits to regulate campaigning in and around polling places, and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
You are assuming that the legislature was actually democratically elected which is, in fact, what the observers are there to attempt to ensure.
Watching around the world it seems to me that only people fucking with the voting process are afraid to have monitors watching them.
Oh agreed. Definitely. In fact I already knew the answer before writing the guy originally. Any telecom provider located in the US *must* be CALEA compliant. However the entire service will give folks a false sense of security and that's the larger point I was trying to make.
Most speech isn't prohibited today, but political winds change all too often and what may be legal today may become illegal tomorrow.
Just hope and wish folks realize that their calls can and WILL be intercepted no matter what Silent Circle may say on the matter, that's all.
We agree to agree :-)
The problem here is that they're not stifling competition. They have no obligation to assist the competition.
If that's the case then that's what an investigation would come up with.
Nonetheless the FTC has to be able to do it's job without being threatened by corrupt politicians.
A week ago replied back with a follow-up question, and have yet to receive a response.
The lack of response is the response. The product is surely CALEA compliant.