For any normal person, the tax law is incredibly simple. The larger you get, the more complicated the laws get.
If you are employed, you pay your taxes via the PAYE system, your employer handles all your tax issues at source.
If you have earnings from other sources, you fill out a 6 page form and send your outstanding tax to a HMRC bank account.
By the time you reach a few million in revenue a year, you need the additional issue of audited accounts. More paperwork, more issues.
Larger multinational companies have more chance that their operations fall under grey areas in tax law - a UK client is sold a product after entering their details on an enquiry form on a website hosted in the US, then being called back by an account handler in a UK office of an Irish subsidiary, pays into an Irish bank account, has his product delivered from a US data center, support handled by Indian call centers. Where should the tax be paid? Until the recent change in law, Google would only have had to pay VAT on that sale in the UK, as their corporation taxes would fall under a foreign nations revenue.
The same holds for a small trader in that respect - an Irish website sells something to a British buyer and makes a profit on that, but will only pay tax on those profits in Ireland.
Google hasnt been found guilty of anything, as this isnt the result of a court case or judicial review - they have come to an agreement with HMRC on the basis that tax law is complicated and can be interpreted in many ways. The two parties came to an agreement and a mutual interpretation of the tax laws without having to involve an independent arbitrator (a judge).
git is decentralised, in that every copy of the repository is identical in functionality, there isnt a client-server model going on. However, GitHubs advantage over plain git is in its value adds, which include being off site (many people dont have an offsite they can push to) and the PR handling system, the UI improvements, issue tracking etc etc etc.
GitHub doesnt disturb the decentralised aspect of git (although many people treat the GitHub copy as a server to push and pull from, but you are more than able to PR direct to a team member, or involve other off site repositories and only push to GH on occasion), but its value adds are most definitely centralised but most definitely not git.
You can happily use git on its own, on your servers, with no issue.
One thing I have yet to see any US candidate address is just who owns this back door and who acts as gatekeeper? Is it supposed to be US government only? Does North Korea get to have a peep under the covers? If not, why not? What do the candidates think about Russia requiring its own back door? How about Syria?
I doubt the scope they are thinking about extends much beyond the US, so why does the US get to think it has a right to my private data as an EU citizen? Because I might potentially, possible, maybe be a terrorist? Thats not good enough.
Also, how are these candidates proposing to make the terrorists use the backdoored encryption, rather than generally known and accepted as secure off the shelf libraries and vb.net UI front ends?
Looks like the anti-MS brigade is out in force - who gives a fuck that this isnt any different to the other projects I highlight, its MS and therefor bad.
So you hate MS, why should I give a shit about that? And "you" having reservations about Microsoft and opensource doesnt mean "people" have reservations - I've been around on Slashdot since 2000 and while its a great anti-MS rhetorical slogan, I have yet to see Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in real life -.Net is awesome, and getting more open source by the day, and MS is releasing stuff as open source left right and centre. So tell me, just how long do I have to wait to be "extended" or "extinguished"? Another 5 years? 10? Am I going to die of old age first?
Now, care to actually tell me how MS acting as gatekeeper for their project is any different from any of the other projects I mentioned? You cant, other than point to your hate filled rhetoric? Ho hum.
The US government does that across the board for a lot of nationals - and for a citizen of a free country, you would also have found yourself in serious legal issues if you tried to fly to certain countries such as Cuba (until recently in that case).
Dont make out the fact that Qatar having an issue with Israel is anything unique or special.
Ahhh trot that old load of bollocks out, as if it makes any difference to this situation.
Got any arguments that are actually worth the name? Being "sentenced" 15 years ago has fuck all to do with them open sourcing a javascript engine today - got any actual decent arguments against them doing that?
I notice you didnt try and argue as to why any of the projects I listed are different in how patches are accepted...
Uh, you are forgetting the ability to GPL it and require copyright assignment for patches submitted to the master branch. GPLing doesnt affect MS at all if they are the ones to do it, they dont have to force GPL use internally nor "open it all up to the public", as they are the copyright holders and can do what they like with it.
If you wanted to fork it and run with your own fork, rather than submitting patches back, thats fine but you would be doing the leg work to kep the fork in sync as and when the original codebase is updated. MS cant take from your fork, but they also dont have to fold in everything you commit and submit directly to them either.
Seconding this - at this stage in the game, JS is here to stay so the emphasis is on improving it rather than replacing it. Too much money is invested in JS right now across the board for the possibility of replacement to be taken seriously - and even if it was replaced, the sunset period would be longer than that of XP...
JS has improved a lot over the past few years, and is set to improve a lot more with the continuing adoption of EcmaScript 6 - thats the best you are going to get Im afraid.
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Nothing is stopping you making and using your own hardware, rather than putting expectations on other peoples products. Of course, making your own hardware isnt cheap or trivial, whereas putting expectations on other people is both of those things.
Now put it into a package which is comparable - guidance package, fins, fusing systems, penetration casings etc. A 2000lb bomb contains less than 1000lb of explosives, its the other stuff which makes it up.
Plus of course we cant manufacture something as small as a Davy Crockett these days, as the materials and systems demand more safety and redundancy - the Davy Crockett was a hail mary example of nuclear engineering in its day.
Considering even a small nuke would come in at a weight exceeding that of a 2000lb LGB, mass and penetration isnt an issue - and delayed fusing is a norm for most guided munitions these days...
The point about having a small nuke is that you can take out that deep bunker with much less collateral damage - the deeper and better protected the bunker, the bigger bang you need at the surface, which means more collateral damage. Put the nuke down the ventilation shaft or down the entrance tunnel and you suddenly need much less bang as you are penetrating much less overburden.
Its the same reason you needed a 20,000lb earthquake bomb in WW2 to take out targets we hit with a 250lb guided munition today.
And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding wifi.
Quite a few of the warheads mounted on submarine delivery platforms have a selectable yield, usually managed by ensuring a particular stage in the warhead doesnt fission or fusion as required.
It means you can get it down the entrance tunnel or ventilation shaft of that deep bunker before detonating - destroy the bunker with a smaller warhead than a ground level nuke would need to penetrate.
You could also take the opinion that the concept of a firearm today is something the signatories to the second amendment could hardly imagine - in 1791, muzzle loading flint locks were still the norm, with breech loading flint locks only really being widely introduced decades later. The standard for multiple shots was three rounds a minute, giving most people a huge period in which to tackle the gunman after his first shot.
I wonder if the signatories would have been so willing to sign had they known that 30 shot repeating rifles with a reload time of 5 seconds for another 30 shots was something they would be putting their names to. Hand guns which could be concealed in a pocket and fired 10 times before reloading. Fully automatic guns firing multiple shots per second, with a single person rivaling the shot weight of an entire ranked infantry group.
The world has changed, why cant people accept that these laws need looking at again?
Slashdot Mirror
Windows IoT Core also runs on ARM, so the core code base is certainly cross platform.
For any normal person, the tax law is incredibly simple. The larger you get, the more complicated the laws get.
If you are employed, you pay your taxes via the PAYE system, your employer handles all your tax issues at source.
If you have earnings from other sources, you fill out a 6 page form and send your outstanding tax to a HMRC bank account.
By the time you reach a few million in revenue a year, you need the additional issue of audited accounts. More paperwork, more issues.
Larger multinational companies have more chance that their operations fall under grey areas in tax law - a UK client is sold a product after entering their details on an enquiry form on a website hosted in the US, then being called back by an account handler in a UK office of an Irish subsidiary, pays into an Irish bank account, has his product delivered from a US data center, support handled by Indian call centers. Where should the tax be paid? Until the recent change in law, Google would only have had to pay VAT on that sale in the UK, as their corporation taxes would fall under a foreign nations revenue.
The same holds for a small trader in that respect - an Irish website sells something to a British buyer and makes a profit on that, but will only pay tax on those profits in Ireland.
Google hasnt been found guilty of anything, as this isnt the result of a court case or judicial review - they have come to an agreement with HMRC on the basis that tax law is complicated and can be interpreted in many ways. The two parties came to an agreement and a mutual interpretation of the tax laws without having to involve an independent arbitrator (a judge).
git is decentralised, in that every copy of the repository is identical in functionality, there isnt a client-server model going on. However, GitHubs advantage over plain git is in its value adds, which include being off site (many people dont have an offsite they can push to) and the PR handling system, the UI improvements, issue tracking etc etc etc.
GitHub doesnt disturb the decentralised aspect of git (although many people treat the GitHub copy as a server to push and pull from, but you are more than able to PR direct to a team member, or involve other off site repositories and only push to GH on occasion), but its value adds are most definitely centralised but most definitely not git.
You can happily use git on its own, on your servers, with no issue.
One thing I have yet to see any US candidate address is just who owns this back door and who acts as gatekeeper? Is it supposed to be US government only? Does North Korea get to have a peep under the covers? If not, why not? What do the candidates think about Russia requiring its own back door? How about Syria?
I doubt the scope they are thinking about extends much beyond the US, so why does the US get to think it has a right to my private data as an EU citizen? Because I might potentially, possible, maybe be a terrorist? Thats not good enough.
Also, how are these candidates proposing to make the terrorists use the backdoored encryption, rather than generally known and accepted as secure off the shelf libraries and vb.net UI front ends?
Looks like the anti-MS brigade is out in force - who gives a fuck that this isnt any different to the other projects I highlight, its MS and therefor bad.
So you hate MS, why should I give a shit about that? And "you" having reservations about Microsoft and opensource doesnt mean "people" have reservations - I've been around on Slashdot since 2000 and while its a great anti-MS rhetorical slogan, I have yet to see Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in real life - .Net is awesome, and getting more open source by the day, and MS is releasing stuff as open source left right and centre. So tell me, just how long do I have to wait to be "extended" or "extinguished"? Another 5 years? 10? Am I going to die of old age first?
Now, care to actually tell me how MS acting as gatekeeper for their project is any different from any of the other projects I mentioned? You cant, other than point to your hate filled rhetoric? Ho hum.
The US government does that across the board for a lot of nationals - and for a citizen of a free country, you would also have found yourself in serious legal issues if you tried to fly to certain countries such as Cuba (until recently in that case).
Dont make out the fact that Qatar having an issue with Israel is anything unique or special.
Ahhh trot that old load of bollocks out, as if it makes any difference to this situation.
Got any arguments that are actually worth the name? Being "sentenced" 15 years ago has fuck all to do with them open sourcing a javascript engine today - got any actual decent arguments against them doing that?
I notice you didnt try and argue as to why any of the projects I listed are different in how patches are accepted...
Uh, you are forgetting the ability to GPL it and require copyright assignment for patches submitted to the master branch. GPLing doesnt affect MS at all if they are the ones to do it, they dont have to force GPL use internally nor "open it all up to the public", as they are the copyright holders and can do what they like with it.
If you wanted to fork it and run with your own fork, rather than submitting patches back, thats fine but you would be doing the leg work to kep the fork in sync as and when the original codebase is updated. MS cant take from your fork, but they also dont have to fold in everything you commit and submit directly to them either.
Seconding this - at this stage in the game, JS is here to stay so the emphasis is on improving it rather than replacing it. Too much money is invested in JS right now across the board for the possibility of replacement to be taken seriously - and even if it was replaced, the sunset period would be longer than that of XP...
JS has improved a lot over the past few years, and is set to improve a lot more with the continuing adoption of EcmaScript 6 - thats the best you are going to get Im afraid.
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Fucking lamest argument against MS doing this...
The X Factor too.
I take it that
a. you didnt finish reading my post, and
b. entirely missed the point of it.
Nothing is stopping you making and using your own hardware, rather than putting expectations on other peoples products. Of course, making your own hardware isnt cheap or trivial, whereas putting expectations on other people is both of those things.
Now put it into a package which is comparable - guidance package, fins, fusing systems, penetration casings etc. A 2000lb bomb contains less than 1000lb of explosives, its the other stuff which makes it up.
Plus of course we cant manufacture something as small as a Davy Crockett these days, as the materials and systems demand more safety and redundancy - the Davy Crockett was a hail mary example of nuclear engineering in its day.
Considering even a small nuke would come in at a weight exceeding that of a 2000lb LGB, mass and penetration isnt an issue - and delayed fusing is a norm for most guided munitions these days...
The point about having a small nuke is that you can take out that deep bunker with much less collateral damage - the deeper and better protected the bunker, the bigger bang you need at the surface, which means more collateral damage. Put the nuke down the ventilation shaft or down the entrance tunnel and you suddenly need much less bang as you are penetrating much less overburden.
Its the same reason you needed a 20,000lb earthquake bomb in WW2 to take out targets we hit with a 250lb guided munition today.
And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding wifi.
Dont forget House of Cards.
Or more commonly known as Scrapheap Challenge over here in the UK - another show exported to the US (yup, we had it first) :)
Uh, Robot Wars first aired in the UK in 1998, two years before Battlebots first aired in the US.
Robot Wars also has the non-broadcast event history behind it dating back to 1994.
Quite a few of the warheads mounted on submarine delivery platforms have a selectable yield, usually managed by ensuring a particular stage in the warhead doesnt fission or fusion as required.
It means you can get it down the entrance tunnel or ventilation shaft of that deep bunker before detonating - destroy the bunker with a smaller warhead than a ground level nuke would need to penetrate.
You could also take the opinion that the concept of a firearm today is something the signatories to the second amendment could hardly imagine - in 1791, muzzle loading flint locks were still the norm, with breech loading flint locks only really being widely introduced decades later. The standard for multiple shots was three rounds a minute, giving most people a huge period in which to tackle the gunman after his first shot.
I wonder if the signatories would have been so willing to sign had they known that 30 shot repeating rifles with a reload time of 5 seconds for another 30 shots was something they would be putting their names to. Hand guns which could be concealed in a pocket and fired 10 times before reloading. Fully automatic guns firing multiple shots per second, with a single person rivaling the shot weight of an entire ranked infantry group.
The world has changed, why cant people accept that these laws need looking at again?
This is the same country which has an act called "Every Student Succeeds"...
Anything to back that up? We didnt pretend anything in 1957.