Over there 120000 or so employees this is about $300 million dolllars, or about 0.15% of the $200 billion they repatriated.
The corporate tax cut saved them about 15% of the repatriated amount, so they passed on 1% of the tax money they saved for employees.
There is a very distinct whiff of nerd resentment here. Don't you just imagine this guy as some popular "sports" kid from high school? It's the same anti-intellectual strain that goes into science denial. Whether or not this particular person feels that way, it's definitely the sentiment he is trying to tap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
In the recent Virginia house of delegates race, Democrats as a whole had a 9 point lead over Republicans, and the Republicans still maintained their majority.
That seems screwed up to me.
No, you can broadcast all the signals from a single source on the ground. GPS antennas aren't very directional; GPS measures range from signal timing only. The only requirements are that you are strong enough to override the real signal. You adjust the timing of the fake signals to spoof out the location you want the target to believe it's at.
The GPS antenna is probably on the top side, with low gain towards the earth (if they are smart). A cubesat might be able to generate the spoofing signal, although you'd need to launch enough to make sure you've got one overhead.
I had a very good engineer retire. He did it six months in advance, which from a management point of view seemed like a reasonable amount of time. (His exact words were "Just to let you know, I talked it over with my wife and we've met all of our retirement savings goals").
Longer than that seems unnecessary, and you may change your mind.
Netflix is not an end user of my Verizon FIOS account. That's just me. Net neutrality meant Verizon couldn't throttle netflix (over, say, Amazon) when I was accessing the website.
Whatever deal Netflix has for there own internet access would affect the amount of traffic they can generate. While I don't think former net neutrality would prevent their provider(s) from selectively blocking some individual customers, they have the market power to prevent that without federal regulation.
There's nothing in the net neutrality regulations that prevented that. They could sell different speeds to end users, they just couldn't modify speeds based on the where the traffic was coming from or going.
>> a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases
This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words; what I would like to hear is a statement from some group of Republican congressmen that it's not necessary.
My impression is that their fears are well founded. Republicans in congress react to unpleasant scientific data by trying to deny the data and suppress further investigation:
This anti-science, anti-evidence approach to policy is a disturbing, and I think recent, trend in Republican politicians. Newt Gingrich was a big science guy, for example. C Everett Koop, the surgeon general under Reagan who personally opposed abortion, refused to interfere with a study in the psychological harm of abortion to the mother.
I hope it's not every Republican, but science denial has become the consensus approach to policy of the Republican party.
I worry about Netflix passing extra charges on to me.
Or what if Verizon decides to charge for connections to AWS. That would be an easy way to tax a whole bunch of little websites at once.
Itâ(TM)s the craftiness of making us pay for stuff indirectly that worries me
Not that I donâ(TM)t worry about the small businesses as well.
I agree that protests, etc are not going to change the vote of the FCC. I think they are nonetheless worth doing; how the FCC vote is perceived will have some practical effects.
First, it will put the ISPs on notice that people see the FCCs moves as a way to screw customers and enrich the ISPs. In markets where there is competition that might limit their bad behavior.
Also, when consumers start seeing things they donâ(TM)t like because ISPs start to take advantage of the new rules, they will connect it to the FCCs decision. That could inform their voting and what they call their congressmen to complain about. That makes change in the future easier.
Letting it happen quietly without discussion or protest will make it harder to mitigate and dislodge later.
I have a 2009 Toyota Yaris with manual locks and roll down windows. And a manual transmission!
I tell people it's a special feature that lets me close the windows even after I shut the car off.
I love that car.
>The entire idea behind today's Left-wing thought is that there is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid.
It seems to be the some among the right are the most vigorous at rejecting objective truth, from Fox News âoethere are no facts only narrativeâ to the Trump administrationâ(TM)s (and the Republican Party in general) rejection of science and objective analysis.
Is âoethe leftâ guilty of the same thing? Iâ(TM)m pretty left in my politics, and what mostly horrifies today is the wholesale rejection of facts in policy making.
In the end Iâ(TM)m coming to the conclusion that âoethe leftâ and âoethe rightâ are just convenient caricatures to make it easier for us to do a wholesale rejection of the opinions of people we disagree with.
There data set isnâ(TM)t nearly big enough to get a collision. For a 256 but hash you need something like 2^128 tries to get a collision.
If every person on earth upload 1 picture a second for 10 years, you get 2^61. If you go to the age of the universe, you get 2^91.
So, all the cases cited in the article were state and local governments.
What the federal government would do about it, Isn't super clear to me. Unless your asking for more federal oversight of local and state governments?
Yeah, what's weird is that it doesn't seem to matter and enough people believe in it to drive up the value.
Just finished "cryptonimocon", in which the premise of the story is people want to set up a digital currency backed by a hoard of WW2 gold they were hunting for.
It seems quaint now because it turns out you don't even need the gold.
(Although it's an awesome book)
Slashdot Mirror
Ha!
Over there 120000 or so employees this is about $300 million dolllars, or about 0.15% of the $200 billion they repatriated.
The corporate tax cut saved them about 15% of the repatriated amount, so they passed on 1% of the tax money they saved for employees.
Those coal miners working at Apple must be so pleased.
Growing up we called them âoeegg bunniesâ. Although Iâ(TM)ve never heard anyone outside my family use the term.
There is a very distinct whiff of nerd resentment here. Don't you just imagine this guy as some popular "sports" kid from high school? It's the same anti-intellectual strain that goes into science denial. Whether or not this particular person feels that way, it's definitely the sentiment he is trying to tap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
In the recent Virginia house of delegates race, Democrats as a whole had a 9 point lead over Republicans, and the Republicans still maintained their majority.
That seems screwed up to me.
If you're running a VPN over a satellite link, you've broken your TCP acceleration and are going to get very slow TCP connections in any event.
No, you can broadcast all the signals from a single source on the ground. GPS antennas aren't very directional; GPS measures range from signal timing only. The only requirements are that you are strong enough to override the real signal. You adjust the timing of the fake signals to spoof out the location you want the target to believe it's at.
The GPS antenna is probably on the top side, with low gain towards the earth (if they are smart). A cubesat might be able to generate the spoofing signal, although you'd need to launch enough to make sure you've got one overhead.
Better to get laid off and get the severance, if you were going anyway.
I had a very good engineer retire. He did it six months in advance, which from a management point of view seemed like a reasonable amount of time. (His exact words were "Just to let you know, I talked it over with my wife and we've met all of our retirement savings goals"). Longer than that seems unnecessary, and you may change your mind.
Netflix is not an end user of my Verizon FIOS account. That's just me. Net neutrality meant Verizon couldn't throttle netflix (over, say, Amazon) when I was accessing the website.
Whatever deal Netflix has for there own internet access would affect the amount of traffic they can generate. While I don't think former net neutrality would prevent their provider(s) from selectively blocking some individual customers, they have the market power to prevent that without federal regulation.
There's nothing in the net neutrality regulations that prevented that. They could sell different speeds to end users, they just couldn't modify speeds based on the where the traffic was coming from or going.
"Evidence based" is not a science word? It's practically a declaration "We're using science here"
>> a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases
This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words; what I would like to hear is a statement from some group of Republican congressmen that it's not necessary. My impression is that their fears are well founded. Republicans in congress react to unpleasant scientific data by trying to deny the data and suppress further investigation:
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
This anti-science, anti-evidence approach to policy is a disturbing, and I think recent, trend in Republican politicians. Newt Gingrich was a big science guy, for example. C Everett Koop, the surgeon general under Reagan who personally opposed abortion, refused to interfere with a study in the psychological harm of abortion to the mother.
I hope it's not every Republican, but science denial has become the consensus approach to policy of the Republican party.
Perhaps there is a way to have sympathy for people who are in a crappy situation, even if they are not saints.
Yeah, itâ(TM)s never worked anywhere else.
I worry about Netflix passing extra charges on to me. Or what if Verizon decides to charge for connections to AWS. That would be an easy way to tax a whole bunch of little websites at once. Itâ(TM)s the craftiness of making us pay for stuff indirectly that worries me Not that I donâ(TM)t worry about the small businesses as well.
I agree that protests, etc are not going to change the vote of the FCC. I think they are nonetheless worth doing; how the FCC vote is perceived will have some practical effects. First, it will put the ISPs on notice that people see the FCCs moves as a way to screw customers and enrich the ISPs. In markets where there is competition that might limit their bad behavior. Also, when consumers start seeing things they donâ(TM)t like because ISPs start to take advantage of the new rules, they will connect it to the FCCs decision. That could inform their voting and what they call their congressmen to complain about. That makes change in the future easier. Letting it happen quietly without discussion or protest will make it harder to mitigate and dislodge later.
I have a 2009 Toyota Yaris with manual locks and roll down windows. And a manual transmission! I tell people it's a special feature that lets me close the windows even after I shut the car off. I love that car.
>The entire idea behind today's Left-wing thought is that there is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid. It seems to be the some among the right are the most vigorous at rejecting objective truth, from Fox News âoethere are no facts only narrativeâ to the Trump administrationâ(TM)s (and the Republican Party in general) rejection of science and objective analysis. Is âoethe leftâ guilty of the same thing? Iâ(TM)m pretty left in my politics, and what mostly horrifies today is the wholesale rejection of facts in policy making. In the end Iâ(TM)m coming to the conclusion that âoethe leftâ and âoethe rightâ are just convenient caricatures to make it easier for us to do a wholesale rejection of the opinions of people we disagree with.
There data set isnâ(TM)t nearly big enough to get a collision. For a 256 but hash you need something like 2^128 tries to get a collision. If every person on earth upload 1 picture a second for 10 years, you get 2^61. If you go to the age of the universe, you get 2^91.
I'm debating. It's about a buck fifty for an episode, on par with what I pay for Dr Who from amazon. I guess I'll have to see how good it is!
So, all the cases cited in the article were state and local governments. What the federal government would do about it, Isn't super clear to me. Unless your asking for more federal oversight of local and state governments?
Yeah, what's weird is that it doesn't seem to matter and enough people believe in it to drive up the value. Just finished "cryptonimocon", in which the premise of the story is people want to set up a digital currency backed by a hoard of WW2 gold they were hunting for. It seems quaint now because it turns out you don't even need the gold. (Although it's an awesome book)
When everyone's job has been replaced by AI, no one will need to commute to work anymore. Problem solved!