"A new extra for Hangouts with extras: make phone calls from inside a hangout
We are constantly listening to feedback so that we can make Hangouts even better for Google+ users, and we're excited by the really cool ways people are using the product. Today we’re making it possible to make phone calls from inside a hangout, so you can dial people into the room from wherever they’re at. (Helpful for party lines and conference calls alike.)
This new feature is initially available inside Hangouts with extras (plus.google.com/hangouts/extras), and we currently support calls to the US and Canada (for free, in fact). The steps for adding a telephone participant are straightforward:
1. Click Invite at the top of the hangouts with extras window 2. Click the Phone tab on the left of the window, and enter the phone number you wish to call. 3. Click Call now.
Do you make a living presenting logical fallacies as arguments? Nobody is preventing MS from bundling anything as long as they don't abuse their monopolistic position in the market. There are many ways to remedy this or to avoid this in the first place - I suggest you read up on this if you are serious in participating in a debate related to antitrust and competition law.
BTW, a quick search on Google gives you plenty of references to the Winsock issues and also some history on how Winsock came to be. I take it that you know how to search on the a internet for information. Feel free to disagree but then you would have to accept the facts are not on your side.
The only thing that matters was whether the monopolist was hindering competition at the time by abusing its monopoly position.
It's funny that you mentioned Winsock. Back in the day Microsoft created a winsock library that detected and overwrote the proprietary winsock DLLs included with the software from the leading online service providers of the day (AOL and Compuserve) and, surprise surprise, conflicted with the software of those services. Many speculated this was to push Microsoft's new (at the time) online service - MSN.
So for Winsock, yes, there was a definite point to answer regarding monopolistic practices when they started bundling it in Windows 95. It also killed Trumpet Winsock, but that was another matter entirely.
It's a bit disingenuous (to put it lightly) arguing your point the way you argued it. Microsoft has been convicted in the past of abusing its monopoly position in operating systems for general purpose desktop (and laptop/notebook/mobile) computing. A large part of that was leveraging its OS and bundling it with different products in other markets (such as web browsers) and making it difficult, if not impossible to separate them (thinking back to the IE debacle).
One more thing, when I said "a bit disingenuous", what I actually meant to say was that you were lying through your teeth. Have a nice day.
By all accounts, Google was not *allowed* by Apple to release a version of Google Maps that was Google branded. Google was willing to compromise by offering a non-branded version that collected more information from iOS users than Apple would like to allow. That was the impasse that led Apple's ill fated venture into GIS.
If the execs and the sales guys want their Apple devices, or Android devices for that matter, what the IT organization thinks is 100% irrelevant. I've seen this happening already in quite a few large organizations that aren't particularly famous for being early adopters in new tech. Next thing to go are the standard windows images - corporate images are normally poor quality that people complain about constantly.
Have you tried retrieving mail from another server via POP3 with SSL? It doesn't work with self-signed certs anymore. It hasn't worked for me since the 12th.
"Please note that, for example, Norway, Switzerland and Finland all have a higher gun count per capita than does the US but nowhere near the number of gun crimes."
Those are your words, exactly as you wrote them. Now check the stats.
I forgot to mention that many jurisdictions put a limit on sales tax so that it is only levied on the final user. This takes away the cascading element of tax and makes it less problematic. However, not all jurisdictions did this. British Columbia, for example, before moving to the HST had provincial sales tax (PST) that that was levied on (nearly) all transactions, whether it is final use or not. This made it a cascade tax as the tax is put on the full value of each transaction. What this led to was vertical integration of companies in a bid to decrease PST.
What the GP described is not a deduction. It is called "transfer pricing" or "cost-effective supply chain management". What they do is they artificially inflate the price of a single stage in the production or sale of the product and accounting for this in subsidiary in a tax haven or a country with a very low tax rate (This is what Google and Microsoft does). Alternatively the actual product itself is owned by a off-shore subsidiary (ie. what Walkers/Lays does with their potato crisps/chips in the UK).
The latter is actually a very good case study in this type of activity. Walkers is the UK snack food subsidiary of PepsiCo/Frito-Lays. They produce much of their products in the UK but the product (ie crisps/chips) are owned by a Swiss subsidiary. The UK factory makes no profits and the profits that come from the sale of the crisps in the UK go directly to the Swiss subsidiary (with much lower corporation tax). It's a complicated structure but it enables them to avoid most of the tax on profits in the UK. This is enabled by the EEC rules the preluded the eventual formation of the EU (which Switzerland is not a part of officially).
What you describe as a tax on gross profits is actually called a "cascade tax" or more commonly known as sales tax. VAT is not a cascade tax and is a tax on the value add of each stage of production. It's not the most straightforward topic so you might want to read up on it if you are passionate about tax reform.
Actually, the quality issue isn't the only thing. Apart from the intrinsic qualities of a product, you also have to consider the wider implications. After all, buying things is just a way of voting with your wallet. If I'm spending money buying a premium product, I wouldn't want to encourage exploitative behavior. If there were two products that were comparable, one made in a country like China or Vietnam, the other made in the US, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, or Europe, I would chose the latter without a doubt, even though it's a bit more expensive. Just because you know that otherwise the money is going to fund more corporate exploitation of cheap labor, and in the meanwhile, the workers would be living and working in poor working conditions, get paid peanuts, have no healthcare, and depending on the country some of the money would be used to fund an oppressive political regime.
You the proved the GP's point. The plant you refer to is not a small business.
BTW, everybody is covered in western Europe. Employers do not hire you part time to avoid their healthcare responsibilities as the responsibility is usually with government to provide care, or create a system of cheap insurance for care.
Aggregated data is a tool, just like guns. You can do both good and evil with it. It's just that in the general populace of a functional modern society, you can do a lot more good with widely available aggregated data than with widely available firearms.
Yet they are refusing to release the details that prove that they did not incorporate any Linux patches to their proprietary codebase.
Most dual licensed projects require that all patches to have ownership granted to the company specifically to guard against this scenario. The kernel model, of course, does not allow that. This discourages dual licensing (which is pretty much how it has played out).
If RedHat can find evidence that a RTS fix or feature was introduced shortly after such a patch was contributed to Linux, then that would be reasonable suspicion.
You must have missed election night coverage on Fox News. You can always catch up on the unintentionally funny parts by watching the Daily Show though.
The reason why we have sub-prime is because of CDOs, so that banks can hide their poor quality loans by bundling them together, and then slicing them up into different layers with different risk profiles. They then sold these off to investors so they could rinse and repeat.
The maths behind them is all wrong and they didn't account for the fact that although you can spread the risk by bundling poor quality loans together, the distribution of the credit events is not random.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does -
https://plus.google.com/104364547339874244431/posts/gKKyJjTpzj8
"A new extra for Hangouts with extras: make phone calls from inside a hangout
We are constantly listening to feedback so that we can make Hangouts even better for Google+ users, and we're excited by the really cool ways people are using the product. Today we’re making it possible to make phone calls from inside a hangout, so you can dial people into the room from wherever they’re at. (Helpful for party lines and conference calls alike.)
This new feature is initially available inside Hangouts with extras (plus.google.com/hangouts/extras), and we currently support calls to the US and Canada (for free, in fact). The steps for adding a telephone participant are straightforward:
1. Click Invite at the top of the hangouts with extras window
2. Click the Phone tab on the left of the window, and enter the phone number you wish to call.
3. Click Call now.
#googleplusupdate"
Try Google Hangouts. It works much better than Skype.
Face it, you lost the argument. No need to start calling names.
It's funny you mention the bankers. They will win no matter which monetary system we use.
Do you make a living presenting logical fallacies as arguments? Nobody is preventing MS from bundling anything as long as they don't abuse their monopolistic position in the market. There are many ways to remedy this or to avoid this in the first place - I suggest you read up on this if you are serious in participating in a debate related to antitrust and competition law.
BTW, a quick search on Google gives you plenty of references to the Winsock issues and also some history on how Winsock came to be. I take it that you know how to search on the a internet for information. Feel free to disagree but then you would have to accept the facts are not on your side.
The only thing that matters was whether the monopolist was hindering competition at the time by abusing its monopoly position.
It's funny that you mentioned Winsock. Back in the day Microsoft created a winsock library that detected and overwrote the proprietary winsock DLLs included with the software from the leading online service providers of the day (AOL and Compuserve) and, surprise surprise, conflicted with the software of those services. Many speculated this was to push Microsoft's new (at the time) online service - MSN.
So for Winsock, yes, there was a definite point to answer regarding monopolistic practices when they started bundling it in Windows 95. It also killed Trumpet Winsock, but that was another matter entirely.
It's a bit disingenuous (to put it lightly) arguing your point the way you argued it. Microsoft has been convicted in the past of abusing its monopoly position in operating systems for general purpose desktop (and laptop/notebook/mobile) computing. A large part of that was leveraging its OS and bundling it with different products in other markets (such as web browsers) and making it difficult, if not impossible to separate them (thinking back to the IE debacle).
One more thing, when I said "a bit disingenuous", what I actually meant to say was that you were lying through your teeth. Have a nice day.
By all accounts, Google was not *allowed* by Apple to release a version of Google Maps that was Google branded. Google was willing to compromise by offering a non-branded version that collected more information from iOS users than Apple would like to allow. That was the impasse that led Apple's ill fated venture into GIS.
Most likely due to tax exceptions for empty buildings.
If the execs and the sales guys want their Apple devices, or Android devices for that matter, what the IT organization thinks is 100% irrelevant. I've seen this happening already in quite a few large organizations that aren't particularly famous for being early adopters in new tech. Next thing to go are the standard windows images - corporate images are normally poor quality that people complain about constantly.
Have you tried retrieving mail from another server via POP3 with SSL? It doesn't work with self-signed certs anymore. It hasn't worked for me since the 12th.
"Please note that, for example, Norway, Switzerland and Finland all have a higher gun count per capita than does the US but nowhere near the number of gun crimes."
Those are your words, exactly as you wrote them. Now check the stats.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
I think you need to apologize to the GP. There are plenty of links to back up these statistics as well, so prepare for a feast.
I forgot to mention that many jurisdictions put a limit on sales tax so that it is only levied on the final user. This takes away the cascading element of tax and makes it less problematic. However, not all jurisdictions did this. British Columbia, for example, before moving to the HST had provincial sales tax (PST) that that was levied on (nearly) all transactions, whether it is final use or not. This made it a cascade tax as the tax is put on the full value of each transaction. What this led to was vertical integration of companies in a bid to decrease PST.
What the GP described is not a deduction. It is called "transfer pricing" or "cost-effective supply chain management". What they do is they artificially inflate the price of a single stage in the production or sale of the product and accounting for this in subsidiary in a tax haven or a country with a very low tax rate (This is what Google and Microsoft does). Alternatively the actual product itself is owned by a off-shore subsidiary (ie. what Walkers/Lays does with their potato crisps/chips in the UK).
The latter is actually a very good case study in this type of activity. Walkers is the UK snack food subsidiary of PepsiCo/Frito-Lays. They produce much of their products in the UK but the product (ie crisps/chips) are owned by a Swiss subsidiary. The UK factory makes no profits and the profits that come from the sale of the crisps in the UK go directly to the Swiss subsidiary (with much lower corporation tax). It's a complicated structure but it enables them to avoid most of the tax on profits in the UK. This is enabled by the EEC rules the preluded the eventual formation of the EU (which Switzerland is not a part of officially).
What you describe as a tax on gross profits is actually called a "cascade tax" or more commonly known as sales tax. VAT is not a cascade tax and is a tax on the value add of each stage of production. It's not the most straightforward topic so you might want to read up on it if you are passionate about tax reform.
Nice misdirection, picking the wrong act.
Actually, the quality issue isn't the only thing. Apart from the intrinsic qualities of a product, you also have to consider the wider implications. After all, buying things is just a way of voting with your wallet. If I'm spending money buying a premium product, I wouldn't want to encourage exploitative behavior. If there were two products that were comparable, one made in a country like China or Vietnam, the other made in the US, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, or Europe, I would chose the latter without a doubt, even though it's a bit more expensive. Just because you know that otherwise the money is going to fund more corporate exploitation of cheap labor, and in the meanwhile, the workers would be living and working in poor working conditions, get paid peanuts, have no healthcare, and depending on the country some of the money would be used to fund an oppressive political regime.
Actually, one of the main factors causing the USSR to collapse was that we forced them to spend too much of their GDP on defense.
Have fun driving your SUV on your post roads, sumdumass.
You the proved the GP's point. The plant you refer to is not a small business.
BTW, everybody is covered in western Europe. Employers do not hire you part time to avoid their healthcare responsibilities as the responsibility is usually with government to provide care, or create a system of cheap insurance for care.
Aggregated data is a tool, just like guns. You can do both good and evil with it. It's just that in the general populace of a functional modern society, you can do a lot more good with widely available aggregated data than with widely available firearms.
Yet they are refusing to release the details that prove that they did not incorporate any Linux patches to their proprietary codebase.
Most dual licensed projects require that all patches to have ownership granted to the company specifically to guard against this scenario. The kernel model, of course, does not allow that. This discourages dual licensing (which is pretty much how it has played out).
One word - changelogs
If RedHat can find evidence that a RTS fix or feature was introduced shortly after such a patch was contributed to Linux, then that would be reasonable suspicion.
That's only Google's cars, but what about the millions of people using Google Navigation in their own cars?
You must have missed election night coverage on Fox News. You can always catch up on the unintentionally funny parts by watching the Daily Show though.
Gosh, people still buy into this stuff?
The reason why we have sub-prime is because of CDOs, so that banks can hide their poor quality loans by bundling them together, and then slicing them up into different layers with different risk profiles. They then sold these off to investors so they could rinse and repeat.
The maths behind them is all wrong and they didn't account for the fact that although you can spread the risk by bundling poor quality loans together, the distribution of the credit events is not random.