They both did something illegal - Apple negotiated the deal it had with Ireland, it wasnt simply following Irish law, so now the deal has been declared illegal, Apple is on the hook for the money it should have been paying had it not negotiated...
The other problem with Apples position is that they didnt just follow Irish tax law, they negotiated with the Irish government over their tax affairs - they are completely complicit in this.
It wasn't Facebooks satellite - they were just leasing a portion of the satellites broadband capability (36 Ka-band spot beams). This was still owned and operated by Spacecom, they and a lot of customers just lost out because of this failure.
This was the first AMOS satellite to be launched by SpaceX, up until now they had been launched by mainly Russian (AMOS-2 and AMOS-5) or Ukranian (AMOS-3 and AMOS-4) launchers, with AMOS-1 being launched by the Ariane 4 as the only exception.
Its not a previously used stage - although I am hearing that it may be the first stage that will be reused later this year, which might be where the mix up comes in.
Its not a used rocket, its a brand new rocket - the first re-use isn't scheduled until later in the year.
And "on the pad" is terminology meaning thats where the failure occurred - not that it was specifically a failure of the pad or the pad equipment (although that can be the case), just that thats where it happened. As opposed to "in flight" etc.
Just a minor point, but most consumer protection laws dont cover private transactions between individuals - they would only apply if the person you bought off of on your equivalent of Craigslist was a business and was selling as a business.
Extremely legit, Troy Hunt goes to great lengths to ethically report breaches, hiding "sensitive" results (so you cant search someones email to see if they were an Maddison Ashley account holder, for example) as well as verifying a dataset is authentic (there are fake ones going around).
You should sign up to that site immediately, if you havent already. You get email notifications if a new breach includes your email address, which is worth it alone.
Congratulations on *completely* misunderstanding the post, and not reading the post it was a reply to. Im not sure how you could misunderstand it that badly either...
Article 50 cannot be used to boot a member nation out of the EU, and nor does it have any link to the Euro, whereas Greeces only problem was with the Euro (it had no control over its currency, and thus had issues with its budget) - there is no corresponding Article 50 for the agreements that make up the Eurozone. Yes, while EU rules say member nations (with a few exceptions) must join the Euro, its an entirely separate set of treaties and bodies and there is no current way enshrined in treaties to leave.
Removing Article 50 will require unanimous consent of member nations - its not being dropped any time soon.
Yes... Ireland took in just under 7 Billion Euros in corporation tax in 2014-2015. The UK took in just over 55 Billion Euros in corporation tax in the same period.
Being the largest payer when you are paying in pennies means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.
Ireland got a shit deal. The UK still got the jobs.
You realise that the provision to leave was enacted recently (2009), when apparently it should, according to you, be ever harder to get such a provision enacted...?
I'm afraid that, semantics aside, your point is invalid because the EU, as formalised in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty, is merely a continuation and expansion of the EEC, formed in 1958, so Apple didn't exist in Europe prior to the rules that the EU are referring to, and the EU has the right to enforce rules as laid out by the EEC and continued under the EU.
Whether or not the tax breaks were illegal, Apple simply paid what the Irish government told them to pay, so as far I am concerned the EU can pound sand.
Apple didn't simply "pay what the Irish government told them to pay", there was a huge amount of negotiation between the two parties, leading to an agreement.
That agreement does not transcend EU rules, so it was illegal at the time and I'm sure you will understand that illegal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."
Good for them.
Wow. 6,000 jobs. When Apple already employ more than that in the UK, where they have no tax deal. What a wonderful deal the Irish got...
And here we have a fine example of a modern conspiracy theory - the NSA is behind any allegations of sexual impropriety against people you favour, your chosen idols couldnt possibly be guilty of anything as uncouth....
Yes, but that doesn't solve the issue of when people do not have access to their own overnight off street parking, now does it?
In the city I live in, Norwich UK, more than 80% of the homes here are 1800s terracing with no off street parking - so no where to do your fabled overnight charge. Office parking is restricted (nowhere I have worked has parking for 100% of employees, and its first come first served). Gas station still looks better for the vast majority of people here...
Virtual Network Operators (companies which sell an end user service but dont operate any equipment themselves, rather lease service off of actual telecoms companies) are still covered under these rules, so if you are providing the service over the internet then I dont see why you shouldnt also fall under the rules...
Regardless of the crime at hand, if the judge throws out the deal, the plea should go with it and the case returned to trial - numerous people see an issue with what the judge did in Polanski's case, so perhaps its you with the problem here.
I've also not pretended anything - you seem to have an agenda here, one at odds with the facts of the case.
Polanski's case is slightly more complex than you make out - he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor under a plea deal with the prosecutor. Under that plea deal, he served 42 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation and under the terms of the plea deal he was to serve probation for the rest of his sentence. No one prosecuting the case was pushing for long term prison time, and the prosecutors, psychiatrists and probation officers were all pushing for probation only.
However, it became apparent to Polanski that the judge was going to throw out the terms of the plea deal, and sentence him to prison under the guilty plea, so Polanski decided the court couldn't be trusted and left the country.
Lets be clear here, right up to that point, the court had utterly no problem letting Polanski travel back and forth to Europe to finish projects during the course of the trial, and Polanski could have absconded at any point prior to his psychiatric evaluation period, but he didn't - it wasn't until it became apparent the judge was going to let the guilty plea stand while throwing out the deal attached to that plea that Polanski absconded.
So yes, Polanski did a horrible thing - but the judge in his case caused his absconding and acted disgustingly. Numerous US judges and officials have said that there was misconduct by the judge in his case, and even his victim has filed to have the charges withdrawn or dismissed, but neither can happen if the defendant doesnt appear in court - which obviously isnt going to happen, and Polanski isnt going to be satisfied with any guarantees from a US judge at this point in time.
Scotland doesnt own 100% of the UK's oil and gas reserves, and in any case could not afford to leave the union - their last case for independence was based around fiscal funding from massive oil and gas revenues, revenues which collapsed by 90% the year after the 2014 independence vote.
Gibraltar won't ever leave, because the only alternative it would have to survive would be to join Spain (Spain wouldn't allow it to join the EU as an independent country), and basically no one in Gibraltar wants that.
And I don't get where you think either country would be able to simply walk away from any Sterling debt simply because the currency changes - debt is not linked to a currency, it exists despite the currency a country uses. No country has yet been able to drop its debts on joining the Euro, so I have no idea why this rumour seems to be so persistent.
Its a pointless story on a pointless topic, because this is the fourth stealth aircraft operated by the USAF which would have been tested against modern SAM systems, so its not as if they only just discovered a problem with the training process.
Turn on the transponder or hang external ordnance off of pylons on the wings, both would be enough to raise the RCS enough to make it hairy for the pilots.
Slashdot Mirror
They both did something illegal - Apple negotiated the deal it had with Ireland, it wasnt simply following Irish law, so now the deal has been declared illegal, Apple is on the hook for the money it should have been paying had it not negotiated...
The other problem with Apples position is that they didnt just follow Irish tax law, they negotiated with the Irish government over their tax affairs - they are completely complicit in this.
It wasn't Facebooks satellite - they were just leasing a portion of the satellites broadband capability (36 Ka-band spot beams). This was still owned and operated by Spacecom, they and a lot of customers just lost out because of this failure.
This was the first AMOS satellite to be launched by SpaceX, up until now they had been launched by mainly Russian (AMOS-2 and AMOS-5) or Ukranian (AMOS-3 and AMOS-4) launchers, with AMOS-1 being launched by the Ariane 4 as the only exception.
Its not a previously used stage - although I am hearing that it may be the first stage that will be reused later this year, which might be where the mix up comes in.
Its not a used rocket, its a brand new rocket - the first re-use isn't scheduled until later in the year.
And "on the pad" is terminology meaning thats where the failure occurred - not that it was specifically a failure of the pad or the pad equipment (although that can be the case), just that thats where it happened. As opposed to "in flight" etc.
Just a minor point, but most consumer protection laws dont cover private transactions between individuals - they would only apply if the person you bought off of on your equivalent of Craigslist was a business and was selling as a business.
Urgh, thats Ashley Madison, the dating site for people wanting to have affairs...
Extremely legit, Troy Hunt goes to great lengths to ethically report breaches, hiding "sensitive" results (so you cant search someones email to see if they were an Maddison Ashley account holder, for example) as well as verifying a dataset is authentic (there are fake ones going around).
You should sign up to that site immediately, if you havent already. You get email notifications if a new breach includes your email address, which is worth it alone.
Congratulations on *completely* misunderstanding the post, and not reading the post it was a reply to. Im not sure how you could misunderstand it that badly either...
Article 50 cannot be used to boot a member nation out of the EU, and nor does it have any link to the Euro, whereas Greeces only problem was with the Euro (it had no control over its currency, and thus had issues with its budget) - there is no corresponding Article 50 for the agreements that make up the Eurozone. Yes, while EU rules say member nations (with a few exceptions) must join the Euro, its an entirely separate set of treaties and bodies and there is no current way enshrined in treaties to leave.
Removing Article 50 will require unanimous consent of member nations - its not being dropped any time soon.
Yes... Ireland took in just under 7 Billion Euros in corporation tax in 2014-2015. The UK took in just over 55 Billion Euros in corporation tax in the same period.
Being the largest payer when you are paying in pennies means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.
Ireland got a shit deal. The UK still got the jobs.
You realise that the provision to leave was enacted recently (2009), when apparently it should, according to you, be ever harder to get such a provision enacted...?
I'm afraid that, semantics aside, your point is invalid because the EU, as formalised in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty, is merely a continuation and expansion of the EEC, formed in 1958, so Apple didn't exist in Europe prior to the rules that the EU are referring to, and the EU has the right to enforce rules as laid out by the EEC and continued under the EU.
Whether or not the tax breaks were illegal, Apple simply paid what the Irish government told them to pay, so as far I am concerned the EU can pound sand.
Apple didn't simply "pay what the Irish government told them to pay", there was a huge amount of negotiation between the two parties, leading to an agreement.
That agreement does not transcend EU rules, so it was illegal at the time and I'm sure you will understand that illegal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."
Good for them.
Wow. 6,000 jobs. When Apple already employ more than that in the UK, where they have no tax deal. What a wonderful deal the Irish got...
And here we have a fine example of a modern conspiracy theory - the NSA is behind any allegations of sexual impropriety against people you favour, your chosen idols couldnt possibly be guilty of anything as uncouth....
Yes, but that doesn't solve the issue of when people do not have access to their own overnight off street parking, now does it?
In the city I live in, Norwich UK, more than 80% of the homes here are 1800s terracing with no off street parking - so no where to do your fabled overnight charge. Office parking is restricted (nowhere I have worked has parking for 100% of employees, and its first come first served). Gas station still looks better for the vast majority of people here...
Virtual Network Operators (companies which sell an end user service but dont operate any equipment themselves, rather lease service off of actual telecoms companies) are still covered under these rules, so if you are providing the service over the internet then I dont see why you shouldnt also fall under the rules...
Regardless of the crime at hand, if the judge throws out the deal, the plea should go with it and the case returned to trial - numerous people see an issue with what the judge did in Polanski's case, so perhaps its you with the problem here.
I've also not pretended anything - you seem to have an agenda here, one at odds with the facts of the case.
Thats not what you said tho...
Just what the fuck should a company do if not profit from its users? Thats the entire point...
Polanski's case is slightly more complex than you make out - he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor under a plea deal with the prosecutor. Under that plea deal, he served 42 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation and under the terms of the plea deal he was to serve probation for the rest of his sentence. No one prosecuting the case was pushing for long term prison time, and the prosecutors, psychiatrists and probation officers were all pushing for probation only.
However, it became apparent to Polanski that the judge was going to throw out the terms of the plea deal, and sentence him to prison under the guilty plea, so Polanski decided the court couldn't be trusted and left the country.
Lets be clear here, right up to that point, the court had utterly no problem letting Polanski travel back and forth to Europe to finish projects during the course of the trial, and Polanski could have absconded at any point prior to his psychiatric evaluation period, but he didn't - it wasn't until it became apparent the judge was going to let the guilty plea stand while throwing out the deal attached to that plea that Polanski absconded.
So yes, Polanski did a horrible thing - but the judge in his case caused his absconding and acted disgustingly. Numerous US judges and officials have said that there was misconduct by the judge in his case, and even his victim has filed to have the charges withdrawn or dismissed, but neither can happen if the defendant doesnt appear in court - which obviously isnt going to happen, and Polanski isnt going to be satisfied with any guarantees from a US judge at this point in time.
If Skylon has so much promise, it shouldnt have any issues getting commercial funding.
Blocking radar is an "act of war" but sending powerful radar deep into your enemies territory isnt?!
Scotland doesnt own 100% of the UK's oil and gas reserves, and in any case could not afford to leave the union - their last case for independence was based around fiscal funding from massive oil and gas revenues, revenues which collapsed by 90% the year after the 2014 independence vote.
Gibraltar won't ever leave, because the only alternative it would have to survive would be to join Spain (Spain wouldn't allow it to join the EU as an independent country), and basically no one in Gibraltar wants that.
And I don't get where you think either country would be able to simply walk away from any Sterling debt simply because the currency changes - debt is not linked to a currency, it exists despite the currency a country uses. No country has yet been able to drop its debts on joining the Euro, so I have no idea why this rumour seems to be so persistent.
Its a pointless story on a pointless topic, because this is the fourth stealth aircraft operated by the USAF which would have been tested against modern SAM systems, so its not as if they only just discovered a problem with the training process.
Turn on the transponder or hang external ordnance off of pylons on the wings, both would be enough to raise the RCS enough to make it hairy for the pilots.