Still bullshit. Of a Car can be accessed ober the Mobile Phone, that Interface must be properly Secured. Using correct crypto protocols. No NSA backdoors please. That rules Out TLS and Similar crap.
But how is that à CAN Bus issue ?
ECU Software is already crypto signed, by the way.
It is almost impossible to prevent a person that has physical access to your car from installing some sort of remote controlled device that can cause failure of some component. There are millions of vehicles out there with 'hacking' vulnerabilities, yet we don't see these attacks happening. Sometimes being aware and practical are enough, sometimes more is needed.
Almost all of the older machine control style buses have this exact flaw. NONE of them authenticate. All of them can be MITM very easily. Most IoT systems out there are predicated on the fact that they can do this.
You think it is bad? No, its worse than that. I try not to think about it much.
Doesn't bother me at all. With or without this flaw, people can sabotage your car. In this case, they have to have the technology, knowhow, access and motive to exploit the flaw. Why would they take the difficult path when there are much easier ways to F with your car?
I suspect this means all Marvel content will eventually be pulled from Netflix. I enjoy most of the Marvel series Netflix currently offer.
And they also own Pixar. I'm a grown man, but I still enjoy Pixar.
I think Netflix will have rights to keep the stuff it has already produced under the Marvel brand, but Disney can stop licensing of new Marvel series. But Netflix has figured out the formula and can produce Marvel-like content on their own, sans the brand name.
> Amazon is making less profit, paying employees more, and paying less taxes.
Really? http://www.visualcapitalist.co...
Seems like Amazon is making a shitload more money than last year to me.
Don't confuse market cap, overall revenue, and UK profits with each other.
Man, you sure had some bad luck. In our state, and most I believe, you get a learners permit a year early, and that couple with passing the public school course is all you need to take your driving and written test for license.
Each year, more and more students admit to not having one. Those without one don't seem at all self-conscious about admitting it; they don't consider it a big deal in any way.
I can assure you that my kids will have DLs. Even if you are not going to own a car, its a valuable skill and not having one presents limits and possibly even safety concerns. I see no reason for not getting one other than laziness, apathy, or fear. Of the two cases of kids that I know that did not get their license when of age, it was fear. Fortunately both overcame that within a couple years.
but for a multi-million dollar share issue to insiders, a tax deduction without any taxes being paid ever, except on the dividend those shares earn,
I think you assume stuff is happening that isn't. Taxes are paid on the stock gift amount as income, only the increases are taxed as capital gains, or decreases as losses, from the legally defined time of issuance. Individuals pay income taxes on that compensation, not corporations.
Two years is NOT in the "Infant Mortality" phase, I was taught that those failure occur in under 90 days, and most often in the 0 to 30 day period.
Two years covers the infant mortality phase, I agree its over before that two year period. The actual period varies with product type and use cases, but I'd agree that its closer to 30 for this type of product. The point was that the two years does not include the age related failure phase as the summary quote suggested.
Yeah, and I'm sure they calibrated for that based on failure rate and historical failures of similar products.
A failure rate of 25% over two years would indicate that even if they only sampled failure rate over the first month, they still got way more than a 1% failure rate, which IMO is an order of magnitude higher than is acceptable in a consumer product over the course of two years. Something is very wrong if CR is coming up with estimates that are that high. That's junk-level hardware by the time you get into a double-digit annual failure rate.
Yeah, it seems ridiculously high. The two years is still in the initial failure phase, I was just pointing out the fallacy of the statement quoted in the summary and what it presumes.
Does changing the time frame from "by the end of the second year of ownership" to "1-2 year failure rate" skew the results because more failures happen later in a product's lifetime?
Failure rates typically follow a bathtub curve, where most manufacturing/design issues are found early in the product life, then age related failures start increasing late in the life cycle. In between is where failures are typically the lowest.
Well something must not be correct because the article claims they are legally taking the expense. Maybe there are alternative legal ways to account for that expense. Thanks for the added info.
Interesting. I spent several months working in the Two Rivers/Manitowoc area back in the late 90s. Things weren't going so well back then. Great people to work with though. Too cold up there for me.
Its not fleecing the UK. It is perfectly legal and common practice. It is compensating employees with stock vs cash in proportion to what makes the best business sense according to established law. There is a reason that a large majority of most employees pay is still the traditional paycheck. Bonuses in the form of stock are desirable to employers and employees. Change the laws and the ratio of stock bonus to paycheck would change accordingly. The number you cited drive the behavior, but its not fleecing. Amazon is giving up equity so they can keep cash. Cash rich companies spend money, which benefits countries in other ways. Rising stock prices benefits all stockholders, many of whom are UK taxpayers but not employees of Amazon, therefore benefiting the UK as well.
There is no loophole. There are established tax rules on how you account for these items, they are being accounted for properly in accordance with the rules and their intent.
Err passing it on to the -- s/employer/employee. And a minor addition: The point being companies are paying LESS tax, people are paying MORE tax, and they don't get that it's basically them getting fleeced. It's as if collecting tax will suddenly stop Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and whomever else from operating in the UK entirely. Cowards.
The people are only paying more tax because they are making more money. That's how it works. Amazon is making less profit, paying employees more, and paying less taxes. Employees are making more, how much more depends on the value of stock when they sell it. I honestly think some people here would rather have Amazon not pay these bonuses to employees, and make more profit just so they can pay more taxes.
Amazon has a vested interest in keeping their share price movement upward, a whole lot more than they would gain from dilution to offset this employee bonus tax deduction. They are simply doing what many other companies do and have been doing for a long time. The only difference is that Amazon is big and its popular to make them the villain. They are increasing employee compensation and paying less taxes.
Amazon is not the only company in the UK who gives employees compensation in the form of stock. It is common practice. It allows Amazon to pay an employee but retain the cash. They are actually paying the employee more based on the stock value at time of award, and therefore paying less taxes. The employee might make more or less in the end from that stock. Most employees are very happy to receive a part of their compensation this way.
How is this different than any other company that gives their employees stock as part of compensation? Its not that unusual. The author is making it out to be some kind of trick. Amazon is paying their employees more, paying less taxes.
So, if the stock goes down, will Amazon have to pay higher taxes? That doesn't make much sense..
No. Amazon's taxes should not change no matter what the stock does, they deduct that expense when they pay the employee just like they deduct any salary or bonus. If it goes up the employee pays more taxes on it when they cash it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Still bullshit. Of a Car can be accessed ober the Mobile Phone, that Interface must be properly Secured. Using correct crypto protocols. No NSA backdoors please. That rules Out TLS and Similar crap.
But how is that à CAN Bus issue ?
ECU Software is already crypto signed, by the way.
It is almost impossible to prevent a person that has physical access to your car from installing some sort of remote controlled device that can cause failure of some component. There are millions of vehicles out there with 'hacking' vulnerabilities, yet we don't see these attacks happening. Sometimes being aware and practical are enough, sometimes more is needed.
Almost all of the older machine control style buses have this exact flaw. NONE of them authenticate. All of them can be MITM very easily. Most IoT systems out there are predicated on the fact that they can do this.
You think it is bad? No, its worse than that. I try not to think about it much.
Doesn't bother me at all. With or without this flaw, people can sabotage your car. In this case, they have to have the technology, knowhow, access and motive to exploit the flaw. Why would they take the difficult path when there are much easier ways to F with your car?
Different strokes for different folks. I, for one, will be quite happy to see all that comic book derived stuff gone.
So NF makes less money and can produce less stuff you might like?
Well, Disney owns Marvel, so I kinda care.
I suspect this means all Marvel content will eventually be pulled from Netflix. I enjoy most of the Marvel series Netflix currently offer.
And they also own Pixar. I'm a grown man, but I still enjoy Pixar.
I think Netflix will have rights to keep the stuff it has already produced under the Marvel brand, but Disney can stop licensing of new Marvel series. But Netflix has figured out the formula and can produce Marvel-like content on their own, sans the brand name.
> Amazon is making less profit, paying employees more, and paying less taxes. Really? http://www.visualcapitalist.co... Seems like Amazon is making a shitload more money than last year to me.
Don't confuse market cap, overall revenue, and UK profits with each other.
But capital gains are only on the increase in value, not the initial value. That is taxed as income.
Man, you sure had some bad luck. In our state, and most I believe, you get a learners permit a year early, and that couple with passing the public school course is all you need to take your driving and written test for license.
Well, there are always rare exceptions, you may be one. Wasn't drivers ed is provided free in public schools in your state?
I did not say things have not changed. I think you misinterpreted my post.
Each year, more and more students admit to not having one. Those without one don't seem at all self-conscious about admitting it; they don't consider it a big deal in any way.
I can assure you that my kids will have DLs. Even if you are not going to own a car, its a valuable skill and not having one presents limits and possibly even safety concerns. I see no reason for not getting one other than laziness, apathy, or fear. Of the two cases of kids that I know that did not get their license when of age, it was fear. Fortunately both overcame that within a couple years.
but for a multi-million dollar share issue to insiders, a tax deduction without any taxes being paid ever, except on the dividend those shares earn,
I think you assume stuff is happening that isn't. Taxes are paid on the stock gift amount as income, only the increases are taxed as capital gains, or decreases as losses, from the legally defined time of issuance. Individuals pay income taxes on that compensation, not corporations.
So we agree.
Two years is NOT in the "Infant Mortality" phase, I was taught that those failure occur in under 90 days, and most often in the 0 to 30 day period.
Two years covers the infant mortality phase, I agree its over before that two year period. The actual period varies with product type and use cases, but I'd agree that its closer to 30 for this type of product. The point was that the two years does not include the age related failure phase as the summary quote suggested.
They are assembling folders of women as we speak.
Yeah, and I'm sure they calibrated for that based on failure rate and historical failures of similar products.
A failure rate of 25% over two years would indicate that even if they only sampled failure rate over the first month, they still got way more than a 1% failure rate, which IMO is an order of magnitude higher than is acceptable in a consumer product over the course of two years. Something is very wrong if CR is coming up with estimates that are that high. That's junk-level hardware by the time you get into a double-digit annual failure rate.
Yeah, it seems ridiculously high. The two years is still in the initial failure phase, I was just pointing out the fallacy of the statement quoted in the summary and what it presumes.
Does changing the time frame from "by the end of the second year of ownership" to "1-2 year failure rate" skew the results because more failures happen later in a product's lifetime?
Failure rates typically follow a bathtub curve, where most manufacturing/design issues are found early in the product life, then age related failures start increasing late in the life cycle. In between is where failures are typically the lowest.
Well something must not be correct because the article claims they are legally taking the expense. Maybe there are alternative legal ways to account for that expense. Thanks for the added info.
Interesting. I spent several months working in the Two Rivers/Manitowoc area back in the late 90s. Things weren't going so well back then. Great people to work with though. Too cold up there for me.
Its not fleecing the UK. It is perfectly legal and common practice. It is compensating employees with stock vs cash in proportion to what makes the best business sense according to established law. There is a reason that a large majority of most employees pay is still the traditional paycheck. Bonuses in the form of stock are desirable to employers and employees. Change the laws and the ratio of stock bonus to paycheck would change accordingly. The number you cited drive the behavior, but its not fleecing. Amazon is giving up equity so they can keep cash. Cash rich companies spend money, which benefits countries in other ways. Rising stock prices benefits all stockholders, many of whom are UK taxpayers but not employees of Amazon, therefore benefiting the UK as well.
There is no loophole. There are established tax rules on how you account for these items, they are being accounted for properly in accordance with the rules and their intent.
Err passing it on to the -- s/employer/employee. And a minor addition: The point being companies are paying LESS tax, people are paying MORE tax, and they don't get that it's basically them getting fleeced. It's as if collecting tax will suddenly stop Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and whomever else from operating in the UK entirely. Cowards.
The people are only paying more tax because they are making more money. That's how it works. Amazon is making less profit, paying employees more, and paying less taxes. Employees are making more, how much more depends on the value of stock when they sell it. I honestly think some people here would rather have Amazon not pay these bonuses to employees, and make more profit just so they can pay more taxes.
Amazon has a vested interest in keeping their share price movement upward, a whole lot more than they would gain from dilution to offset this employee bonus tax deduction. They are simply doing what many other companies do and have been doing for a long time. The only difference is that Amazon is big and its popular to make them the villain. They are increasing employee compensation and paying less taxes.
Amazon is not the only company in the UK who gives employees compensation in the form of stock. It is common practice. It allows Amazon to pay an employee but retain the cash. They are actually paying the employee more based on the stock value at time of award, and therefore paying less taxes. The employee might make more or less in the end from that stock. Most employees are very happy to receive a part of their compensation this way.
How is this different than any other company that gives their employees stock as part of compensation? Its not that unusual. The author is making it out to be some kind of trick. Amazon is paying their employees more, paying less taxes.
So, if the stock goes down, will Amazon have to pay higher taxes? That doesn't make much sense..
No. Amazon's taxes should not change no matter what the stock does, they deduct that expense when they pay the employee just like they deduct any salary or bonus. If it goes up the employee pays more taxes on it when they cash it out.