Taxing the stock when it is given means an employee gets a tax bill but doesn't necessarily have any real money to pay it with. That sort of arrangement often creates perverse incentives, and isn't normally how taxes on capital gains work.
The UK pound is down by 20% in the last couple of years
Sterling was probably overvalued and due for a correction even before the Brexit vote, though. While the referendum result triggered a sharp drop and further falls over the following weeks, the pound has since recovered some of those losses and it now sits roughly in line with the longer term trend against the US dollar. Some economists had been arguing that it should be closer to its current level anyway, so we shouldn't necessarily expect it to continue falling or take any more sharp dives on account of Brexit (unless they screw up the negotiations, of course...).
Sorry, I can't write late at night. The figure for UK ambulance call-outs to all potentially life-threatening incidents should have been 5,000-10,000 per day, not 50,000-100,000. My fundamental point remains the same, though.
There doesn't seem to be any particular need to hide what was sent here, I agree. If it's going by a standard channel such as SMS, might as well leave the message stored in the sent messages area along with everything else.
Because you want emergency call handling to be as simple and reliable as possible.
People making emergency calls are often distressed and unsure of what to do. They may panic, say things that aren't correct or don't make sense, or fail to follow simple instructions. The emergency operator still needs to collect essential information about the nature of the emergency as efficiently and accurately as possible and relay that information to the responders.
The last thing that operator needs is for the caller to be messing around taking the phone away from their ear to check on the screen for something about an app they didn't know they launched, or trying to find the right touchscreen button in the glare of bright sunlight or when they don't have their glasses with them and can't read the screen clearly.
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
I'm sure that's a possibility, but unless you got the wrong side of Jason Bourne recently it's probably not something most of us need to worry about when calling for an ambulance.
On the other hand, ambulance services here in the UK deal with more than 100,000 Red 1 calls every year. These are the most urgent kind of medical emergency, things like cardiac arrests or where a casualty has stopped breathing. The target for an emergency vehicle arriving at the scene in these cases is usually 8 minutes, because the casualty's chances of survival drop rapidly if they don't receive that level of care by that time.
If you consider calls to all potentially life-threatening situations, which also typically have an 8 minute target, the figure is more like 50,000-100,000 per day. Although most calls aren't for something as serious as a cardiac arrest, there are many other conditions -- strokes, for example -- where providing care even a little faster can significantly improve a patient's chances of survival or a good recovery.
Not adopting a system that will get significantly faster help to millions of people with potentially life-threatening conditions every year because you're worried about a hit man infiltrating the ambulance service seems like a decision for movie script writers, not people making real world decisions with real lives at stake.
I'm all for defending privacy, but in a situation where a phone is already being used to call emergency services, giving an exact location is hardly an infringement, is it? You're not just calling them for a friendly chat. You're calling them because something bad happened and someone needs help, as soon as possible, wherever you are right now. Something that reliably tells the ambulance crew where to find a casualty even a single minute faster than describing their location verbally to an operator and having them figure out where you mean is surely going to save lives.
If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law. That's defamation of character. I'm wondering why people haven't filed a court claim like this.
No it doesn't, no it isn't, and because they actually know something about the law, respectively.
The law is not a child's toy, and if you tried the sort of childish antics you're proposing then you would rightly be laughed out of court and possibly left with a significant bill for your legal fees.
Ah, I see. All the doctors warning about increasing childhood obesity levels, and all the long-serving teachers warning about children so unable to concentrate that they have to make their classes easier, why listen to them? It's not like they're experts with vast amounts of experience to draw on, and it's not like pretty much all of them agree. If they haven't published, their experience is meaningless. The plural of anecdote is not data, even when the number of anecdotes is literally approaching the size of the population. They're just as stupid as the scientists who have spent a whole career studying sleep who can explain in detail the mechanisms that would produce a causal relationship between using devices like phones late at night and not sleeping properly, and a causal relationship between inadequate sleep and the other problems mentioned before.
The mechanisms by which using electronic devices with various types of screen late at night disrupt the normal process of sleep are very well established.
The consequences of inadequate sleep for other negative effects, notably poor concentration and poor health and fitness, are also very well established.
And the underlying papers behind those articles, and countless more like them, come from real research done by real scientists at reputable institutions like MIT or KCL.
Arguing that there is no causality here is like arguing that recent climate change isn't a result of human behaviour, because while the IPCC may have brought together vast numbers of studies performed by vast numbers of scientists over several decades, you saw a chart in a documentary once where the curves were the "wrong way around" and that makes everything the experts all said wrong.
Oh, so you're [citation needed] for the sun coming up in the morning guy. Hi, nice to meet you. I figured you'd be around somewhere.
But seriously, obviously science is useful, but quantified studies in controlled environments are hardly necessary when the everyday experience of normal people already provides ample evidence that something is happening.
In any case, my position is also backed up by a mountain of scientific evidence, which is yours for the price of a google search. I even provided links to a few articles, which in turn cite various studies from reputable sources, in another comment here.
Unfortunately, it does follow when some kids are spending so much time on their phones that there literally isn't enough left in a day for as much of the other useful activities as kids used to do.
As far as I can see, no-one in this thread has made any claims about who is responsible for the current situation. The discussion so far was about what the current situation is. How it came about and what to do about it are different questions.
If that makes you happy, plenty of such research exists; I linked a few stories about them from another comment.
But really, it doesn't take a PhD to identify a trend that any parent or teacher can tell you: kids today spend far more time on their phones (not least because kids yesterday didn't have those phones) and therefore have less time for things like sleeping and physical exercise than the previous generation. Disputing this is like being the guy who replies "[citation needed]" when someone asserts that the sun will probably rise tomorrow.
I'm all for having real data and robust analysis, but it doesn't take a science paper to tell me not to experiment with walking off a cliff or holding my hand in a fire. It also doesn't take a science paper to tell me that it's not a healthy situation when a generation of young people are so obsessed with their phones that they don't get proper sleep, can't concentrate on anything important, lack even a basic level of fitness, and would rather spend a huge proportion of their lives communicating with their "friends" in short messages punctuated by emoticons than doing anything more constructive.
Microsoft provided security updates for XP without any other strings attached for well over a decade.
Apple typically provides security updates for iOS devices without any other strings attached... well, not really ever, because any updates can have non-essential changes you might or might not want mixed in with the security fixes.
Can you really not see the fundamental difference between these two situations, and why one is far more reasonable than the other in terms of after-sales support?
What standard do you expect Apple to follow? Please be specific.
No. I'm sorry, I understand you wish it were otherwise, but typically the law does not work like that. What is reasonable is going to depend on context, so the best you can do speaking generally is give some obvious out-of-bounds cases, which I did.
At least 2 years for iOS.
So not exactly close to the likely working lifetime of a typical iPad, then.
What do you mean specifically "the way Apple has driven iOS updates"?
Most obviously, if you want security fixes, you have to update to the latest available version of iOS for your device. That typically brings many other changes as well, from completely redesigned UIs to app compatibility issues.
Moreover, Apple has used its control of the App Store to limit availability of apps compatible with older versions of iOS. When iOS7 was released, apps were required to work with it and you could only get iOS7-based apps from the App Store from that point on.
Also, did you notice the subject of today's Slashdot discussion at all?
And why woudn't you?
Because Apple doesn't issue separate security updates for older versions of iOS.
MS says you cannot run Office 2003 on Windowws 8 or newer.
One person apparently from MS in an unspecified capacity said that, citing an article that apparently no longer exists in Microsoft's knowledge base.
Lots more people said they had actually tried it and it worked fine, or pointed to an incompatibility involving Windows Update if you upgraded from 7 to 8 with Office 2003 installed.
By the way Windows 7 is EOL but MS will continue to create security updates until 2020.
Right. So even with its extremely aggressive promotion of Windows 10, MS is still providing more than a decade of security fixes for Windows 7, including several years after the last new computer was sold (supposedly) with 7 preinstalled, and according to a clear timetable published many years in advance of any cut-off dates. This is far more in line with typical working lifetimes of Windows PCs than Apple's approach with iOS and iSomethings.
Then you'll need OS and possible all new productivity software.
And here's the thing: We know that. As it happens, we are actively investigating alternative platforms, precisely because we aren't willing to sign up for Microsoft's rolling updates and whatever else they feel like throwing in on a whim with Windows 10. But the important thing is that we can make that choice, because Microsoft have at least been transparent about what they are and aren't going to support with Windows. Where do I find anything resembling that sort of clarity or commitment from Apple in the context of iOS devices?
If it's not sufficiently obvious then that's what we have courts and tribunals to decide. However, selling a high-end electronic product for hundreds of bucks with hardware that could last a decade and then nerfing it artificially through software after a couple of years surely wouldn't qualify.
Developers were notified in advance for years.
How many years, exactly? We've got iThings here that are 5-6 years old and still going strong, but we've lost the use of some apps on them purely because of the way Apple has driven iOS updates and what's allowed in the App Store in the intervening period. Were the developers of those apps given sufficient notice to avoid this problem?
If you don't update to iOS11, you're fine with the old apps.
And if we don't update to iOS11 so we can keep using software that currently works, will we still be safe and secure connecting our iPhones and iPads to the Internet?
So you can use Office 2003 with Windows 8? No. And they're from the same company.
I wouldn't know, because we're still running Windows 7, in our view the last acceptable version of Windows. That's an option we have because Microsoft still issues Windows 7 security fixes without requiring updates to later Windows versions that might break application compatibility, by the way.
What I wrote was essential security updates without breaking anything else.
Your analogy fails because someone who was running XP enjoyed security updates for many years without needing to upgrade to 7 if they didn't want the other changes, such as those that would break important applications or device drivers for them. You weren't forced from XP to 7, along with everything else that involved, just to keep your connected system secure. An application might have worked on XP but not on 7, but you could still use it on XP while remaining safely patched against vulnerabilities.
No, both have been paid for a specific product. That product should be fit for purpose and of a reasonable standard. This is basic honesty in sales, and there are laws with similar effect in many places as well.
Any of these vendors are free to update their products to attract new business, but that doesn't mean they get to just abandon everyone whose money they already took if they supplied something substandard that stops working unreasonably quickly.
I don't really have a problem with Apple dropping support for old versions of the OS - you can't expect a device to come with unlimited support for the lifetime of the hardware without paying for a support contract.
This is the common assumption that I think needs to be challenged at this point.
As a professional software developer, I understand the implications here. In fact, I've argued before that platform software like Windows or iOS ought to come with a specific length of support guaranteed and then something like a support contract that lets customers extend the support for essential functionality to keep their devices and other software running so they're not forced to change something they're happy with but the software developer isn't forced to write a blank cheque the moment they sell anything. This seems like a reasonable approach to me that is good for everyone.
However, in just about any other context, we expect that if we buy something, particularly something expensive, then it will do its job. In fact, that's the law in a lot of places. If your washing machine or your TV or your car doesn't work properly or breaks within an unreasonable period of time, the vendor/manufacturer has to put it right, or compensate you in some other appropriate way. What is considered reasonable depends on the nature of the device and how much it costs, but obligations can last for many years.
While I'm generally supportive of the right-to-repair movement, I think that is a separate issue here. What we're talking about in this case is simply whether you can continue to use your iWhatever and the software that goes with it in the same way as you bought it, but with defects (such as security vulnerabilities or functionality-breaking bugs) made good.
Clearly the technology landscape is changing, and these days it's not just about the device as you bought it but also the surrounding ecosystem, the software you can run on it, the data you store on it and within that software, and so on. These aren't simple questions at all, and I doubt there are many "right answers" here. But I still don't see why manufacturers of tech equipment or software should get a free pass on the basic principles that we apply everywhere else. They ought to be required to support what they sell properly for a reasonable period, with no other strings attached, or to compensate customers who lose out because something doesn't work properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxing the stock when it is given means an employee gets a tax bill but doesn't necessarily have any real money to pay it with. That sort of arrangement often creates perverse incentives, and isn't normally how taxes on capital gains work.
The UK pound is down by 20% in the last couple of years
Sterling was probably overvalued and due for a correction even before the Brexit vote, though. While the referendum result triggered a sharp drop and further falls over the following weeks, the pound has since recovered some of those losses and it now sits roughly in line with the longer term trend against the US dollar. Some economists had been arguing that it should be closer to its current level anyway, so we shouldn't necessarily expect it to continue falling or take any more sharp dives on account of Brexit (unless they screw up the negotiations, of course...).
Sorry, I can't write late at night. The figure for UK ambulance call-outs to all potentially life-threatening incidents should have been 5,000-10,000 per day, not 50,000-100,000. My fundamental point remains the same, though.
There doesn't seem to be any particular need to hide what was sent here, I agree. If it's going by a standard channel such as SMS, might as well leave the message stored in the sent messages area along with everything else.
**Whoosh**?
Because you want emergency call handling to be as simple and reliable as possible.
People making emergency calls are often distressed and unsure of what to do. They may panic, say things that aren't correct or don't make sense, or fail to follow simple instructions. The emergency operator still needs to collect essential information about the nature of the emergency as efficiently and accurately as possible and relay that information to the responders.
The last thing that operator needs is for the caller to be messing around taking the phone away from their ear to check on the screen for something about an app they didn't know they launched, or trying to find the right touchscreen button in the glare of bright sunlight or when they don't have their glasses with them and can't read the screen clearly.
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
I'm sure that's a possibility, but unless you got the wrong side of Jason Bourne recently it's probably not something most of us need to worry about when calling for an ambulance.
On the other hand, ambulance services here in the UK deal with more than 100,000 Red 1 calls every year. These are the most urgent kind of medical emergency, things like cardiac arrests or where a casualty has stopped breathing. The target for an emergency vehicle arriving at the scene in these cases is usually 8 minutes, because the casualty's chances of survival drop rapidly if they don't receive that level of care by that time.
If you consider calls to all potentially life-threatening situations, which also typically have an 8 minute target, the figure is more like 50,000-100,000 per day. Although most calls aren't for something as serious as a cardiac arrest, there are many other conditions -- strokes, for example -- where providing care even a little faster can significantly improve a patient's chances of survival or a good recovery.
Not adopting a system that will get significantly faster help to millions of people with potentially life-threatening conditions every year because you're worried about a hit man infiltrating the ambulance service seems like a decision for movie script writers, not people making real world decisions with real lives at stake.
Have you ever checked out the difference between 'American Standard' electrical power plugs and the European ones?
Someone always has to try to bring the conversation back down to earth...
I'm all for defending privacy, but in a situation where a phone is already being used to call emergency services, giving an exact location is hardly an infringement, is it? You're not just calling them for a friendly chat. You're calling them because something bad happened and someone needs help, as soon as possible, wherever you are right now. Something that reliably tells the ambulance crew where to find a casualty even a single minute faster than describing their location verbally to an operator and having them figure out where you mean is surely going to save lives.
If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law. That's defamation of character. I'm wondering why people haven't filed a court claim like this.
No it doesn't, no it isn't, and because they actually know something about the law, respectively.
The law is not a child's toy, and if you tried the sort of childish antics you're proposing then you would rightly be laughed out of court and possibly left with a significant bill for your legal fees.
Ah, I see. All the doctors warning about increasing childhood obesity levels, and all the long-serving teachers warning about children so unable to concentrate that they have to make their classes easier, why listen to them? It's not like they're experts with vast amounts of experience to draw on, and it's not like pretty much all of them agree. If they haven't published, their experience is meaningless. The plural of anecdote is not data, even when the number of anecdotes is literally approaching the size of the population. They're just as stupid as the scientists who have spent a whole career studying sleep who can explain in detail the mechanisms that would produce a causal relationship between using devices like phones late at night and not sleeping properly, and a causal relationship between inadequate sleep and the other problems mentioned before.
The mechanisms by which using electronic devices with various types of screen late at night disrupt the normal process of sleep are very well established.
The consequences of inadequate sleep for other negative effects, notably poor concentration and poor health and fitness, are also very well established.
And the underlying papers behind those articles, and countless more like them, come from real research done by real scientists at reputable institutions like MIT or KCL.
Arguing that there is no causality here is like arguing that recent climate change isn't a result of human behaviour, because while the IPCC may have brought together vast numbers of studies performed by vast numbers of scientists over several decades, you saw a chart in a documentary once where the curves were the "wrong way around" and that makes everything the experts all said wrong.
Oh, so you're [citation needed] for the sun coming up in the morning guy. Hi, nice to meet you. I figured you'd be around somewhere.
But seriously, obviously science is useful, but quantified studies in controlled environments are hardly necessary when the everyday experience of normal people already provides ample evidence that something is happening.
In any case, my position is also backed up by a mountain of scientific evidence, which is yours for the price of a google search. I even provided links to a few articles, which in turn cite various studies from reputable sources, in another comment here.
Unfortunately, it does follow when some kids are spending so much time on their phones that there literally isn't enough left in a day for as much of the other useful activities as kids used to do.
As far as I can see, no-one in this thread has made any claims about who is responsible for the current situation. The discussion so far was about what the current situation is. How it came about and what to do about it are different questions.
If that makes you happy, plenty of such research exists; I linked a few stories about them from another comment.
But really, it doesn't take a PhD to identify a trend that any parent or teacher can tell you: kids today spend far more time on their phones (not least because kids yesterday didn't have those phones) and therefore have less time for things like sleeping and physical exercise than the previous generation. Disputing this is like being the guy who replies "[citation needed]" when someone asserts that the sun will probably rise tomorrow.
If any of the things you insist are "obvious" were actually true, then it would be easy to support them with actual data ... yet you can't.
Research has suggested a causal link for years.
I'm all for having real data and robust analysis, but it doesn't take a science paper to tell me not to experiment with walking off a cliff or holding my hand in a fire. It also doesn't take a science paper to tell me that it's not a healthy situation when a generation of young people are so obsessed with their phones that they don't get proper sleep, can't concentrate on anything important, lack even a basic level of fitness, and would rather spend a huge proportion of their lives communicating with their "friends" in short messages punctuated by emoticons than doing anything more constructive.
Microsoft provided security updates for XP without any other strings attached for well over a decade.
Apple typically provides security updates for iOS devices without any other strings attached... well, not really ever, because any updates can have non-essential changes you might or might not want mixed in with the security fixes.
Can you really not see the fundamental difference between these two situations, and why one is far more reasonable than the other in terms of after-sales support?
What standard do you expect Apple to follow? Please be specific.
No. I'm sorry, I understand you wish it were otherwise, but typically the law does not work like that. What is reasonable is going to depend on context, so the best you can do speaking generally is give some obvious out-of-bounds cases, which I did.
At least 2 years for iOS.
So not exactly close to the likely working lifetime of a typical iPad, then.
What do you mean specifically "the way Apple has driven iOS updates"?
Most obviously, if you want security fixes, you have to update to the latest available version of iOS for your device. That typically brings many other changes as well, from completely redesigned UIs to app compatibility issues.
Moreover, Apple has used its control of the App Store to limit availability of apps compatible with older versions of iOS. When iOS7 was released, apps were required to work with it and you could only get iOS7-based apps from the App Store from that point on.
Also, did you notice the subject of today's Slashdot discussion at all?
And why woudn't you?
Because Apple doesn't issue separate security updates for older versions of iOS.
MS says you cannot run Office 2003 on Windowws 8 or newer.
One person apparently from MS in an unspecified capacity said that, citing an article that apparently no longer exists in Microsoft's knowledge base.
Lots more people said they had actually tried it and it worked fine, or pointed to an incompatibility involving Windows Update if you upgraded from 7 to 8 with Office 2003 installed.
By the way Windows 7 is EOL but MS will continue to create security updates until 2020.
Right. So even with its extremely aggressive promotion of Windows 10, MS is still providing more than a decade of security fixes for Windows 7, including several years after the last new computer was sold (supposedly) with 7 preinstalled, and according to a clear timetable published many years in advance of any cut-off dates. This is far more in line with typical working lifetimes of Windows PCs than Apple's approach with iOS and iSomethings.
Then you'll need OS and possible all new productivity software.
And here's the thing: We know that. As it happens, we are actively investigating alternative platforms, precisely because we aren't willing to sign up for Microsoft's rolling updates and whatever else they feel like throwing in on a whim with Windows 10. But the important thing is that we can make that choice, because Microsoft have at least been transparent about what they are and aren't going to support with Windows. Where do I find anything resembling that sort of clarity or commitment from Apple in the context of iOS devices?
And what is that standard?
If it's not sufficiently obvious then that's what we have courts and tribunals to decide. However, selling a high-end electronic product for hundreds of bucks with hardware that could last a decade and then nerfing it artificially through software after a couple of years surely wouldn't qualify.
Developers were notified in advance for years.
How many years, exactly? We've got iThings here that are 5-6 years old and still going strong, but we've lost the use of some apps on them purely because of the way Apple has driven iOS updates and what's allowed in the App Store in the intervening period. Were the developers of those apps given sufficient notice to avoid this problem?
If you don't update to iOS11, you're fine with the old apps.
And if we don't update to iOS11 so we can keep using software that currently works, will we still be safe and secure connecting our iPhones and iPads to the Internet?
So you can use Office 2003 with Windows 8? No. And they're from the same company.
I wouldn't know, because we're still running Windows 7, in our view the last acceptable version of Windows. That's an option we have because Microsoft still issues Windows 7 security fixes without requiring updates to later Windows versions that might break application compatibility, by the way.
What I wrote was essential security updates without breaking anything else.
Your analogy fails because someone who was running XP enjoyed security updates for many years without needing to upgrade to 7 if they didn't want the other changes, such as those that would break important applications or device drivers for them. You weren't forced from XP to 7, along with everything else that involved, just to keep your connected system secure. An application might have worked on XP but not on 7, but you could still use it on XP while remaining safely patched against vulnerabilities.
No, both have been paid for a specific product. That product should be fit for purpose and of a reasonable standard. This is basic honesty in sales, and there are laws with similar effect in many places as well.
Any of these vendors are free to update their products to attract new business, but that doesn't mean they get to just abandon everyone whose money they already took if they supplied something substandard that stops working unreasonably quickly.
I don't really have a problem with Apple dropping support for old versions of the OS - you can't expect a device to come with unlimited support for the lifetime of the hardware without paying for a support contract.
This is the common assumption that I think needs to be challenged at this point.
As a professional software developer, I understand the implications here. In fact, I've argued before that platform software like Windows or iOS ought to come with a specific length of support guaranteed and then something like a support contract that lets customers extend the support for essential functionality to keep their devices and other software running so they're not forced to change something they're happy with but the software developer isn't forced to write a blank cheque the moment they sell anything. This seems like a reasonable approach to me that is good for everyone.
However, in just about any other context, we expect that if we buy something, particularly something expensive, then it will do its job. In fact, that's the law in a lot of places. If your washing machine or your TV or your car doesn't work properly or breaks within an unreasonable period of time, the vendor/manufacturer has to put it right, or compensate you in some other appropriate way. What is considered reasonable depends on the nature of the device and how much it costs, but obligations can last for many years.
While I'm generally supportive of the right-to-repair movement, I think that is a separate issue here. What we're talking about in this case is simply whether you can continue to use your iWhatever and the software that goes with it in the same way as you bought it, but with defects (such as security vulnerabilities or functionality-breaking bugs) made good.
Clearly the technology landscape is changing, and these days it's not just about the device as you bought it but also the surrounding ecosystem, the software you can run on it, the data you store on it and within that software, and so on. These aren't simple questions at all, and I doubt there are many "right answers" here. But I still don't see why manufacturers of tech equipment or software should get a free pass on the basic principles that we apply everywhere else. They ought to be required to support what they sell properly for a reasonable period, with no other strings attached, or to compensate customers who lose out because something doesn't work properly.
Just don't connect your device to anything afterwards...