You can do this very simply and legally no need for privacy. Ever hear of a Tax haven, it works like this. You setup a company in Tax haven then you don't pay taxes.
Not only that but can move your current tax bill there with perfectly legal tricks and measures.
Just a game which is why the socialist agenda will never work, you have to have low taxes or the profits will be elsewhere.
Google sells you a phone from local US company then pays Alphabet International (registered in Ireland) a license fee for the IP 99% of the profit. This works for all their stuff, it takes an accountant and a lawyer to drop your tax bill to zero (probably a refund.)
There maybe a slight amount of embarrassment when it gets published in the media, especially if you are pushing a Liberal Tax the rich agenda.
This is the big corp v's single person. Who is going to sue and what would you get if you did win? perhaps they would delete your data, or say they did. Hard to assign a value to what you have signed away.
Legislative measures do have a place, not sure if this is one but it sure is an area of abuse so would be worth looking at.
Google use names for things that just don't help user who use things once in a while. eg Hangouts. I think it is some sort of skype or something but it is the stupidest name on earth. Can you tell someone in business meet you on hangouts for a quick catchup?
I think the issue is google has lots of smart kids that want the world to conform to their little bubble of thinking, they do not put the customer first.
Google+ was just a copy of facebook with no vision and no reason for people to use it, i.e. no compelling reason to switch from facebook. Google should have brought facebook outright for 40Bil or something instead of wasting time here. If facebook cost money (monthly) and Google+ was free it may have worked. Facebook has plenty that could be improved but the google crew are not the team to do it.
What they could have done is found 1000 people and asked them what are 3 things you would like to improve about facebook. Then got 3 thousand things to improve, narrowed it down to
Google have a so much money and ability but seem to lack the straight business sense of Microsoft who brought hotmail and skype etc. This shows that Microsoft know business better than google. Even if google win in a lot of technical areas.
but what are the scientists saying, because there is a lot of sensationalism in the media of what they are saying and there is what they are really saying. What they are really saying is all sorts of things but not a unified consensus about what will happen and what the cause of what has happened is. There is a problem with media and true believers (not yourself probably) who have spouted stuff and then they followed up by staying with the program. There is a thing called climate gate.
When chicken little runs around saying the sky is falling he gets enough media attention and says everything that happens is a sign of the end of the world and what not it becomes difficult to sift out the crap and get to the truth. Have a look at climate gate and you may get a insight into the mindset here. None of that proves anything just that there is a lot of fud. For example these glaciers were supposed to disappear now they are not disappearing but it is bad news and some people expect us all to stay convinced and fearful about the end of world in 7 years.
Some of us are a little jaded by the climate stuff being the end of the world and every news story having to follow the same path.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters.
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.)
But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
99% would not do that because they have political point to everything they say and it might not go down well since he is dead. Trump says what he is thinking and then causes everyone to talk about for a week. Think of it like this everytime he does something that starts a media fire it just puts him in the spot light (which is what will make him win next time.) and he is on twitter with a big box of matches. He is not politically correct at all but that is a good thing in so many ways (it also has it's down side.)
The real question is after all this time and effort why the left media and politicians won't let go of this and say we did not get him on collusion or obstruction. The answer of course is TDS( Trump Derangement Syndrome ) it has literally sent them round the bend.
Probably you are mixing up evidence with proof here.
Evidence can be (if the case was a murder trial.) you were angry at the person murdered, you made a call to the person in the week before they were murdered and there was an argument that was witnessed between you and them.
Evidence is far from proof and it does not mean he committed a crime.
I wondered if I will get modded down for such a factual unbiased post.
No proof currently means nothing, if he can get proof then good if he cannot (because there is no shadow banning) then even better.
It is difficult to have sanity on a political subject, and if anyone needs banning to me it is the left leaning comments such as in response to this fairly run of the mill event.
Would be nice if we could relax and just let him and twitter sort it out in court, no need to jump to conclusions or worry about the outcome it will be provided in due course.
He seems more relaxed about it than the whole crowd on/.
How many extra tonnes of coal are burnt to charge these things? Not that it matters too much as reducing dependence on oil is a multi stage undertaking and probably better to throw extra demand to the electricity grid so it is worth upgrading (financially coal may be better than oil anyway from a national point of view.)
If you first take the word Trump out and then say US Intelligence agencies believe that China is snooping here. Banning US routers is up to the countries in question, the US has not asked them to, banning the Huawei ones will reduce a vulnerability. The US know what they are doing as they did the same.
Ignoring this advice is just like shooting yourself in the foot, China wants all your secrets for technology and national purposes. Telco's don't want to do it because they want the path of least resistance and most profit. It is sometimes better to guard yourself and put up a wall to protect yourself.
When it comes to anything with the inference of politics/. seems to break down into unreadable nonsense (not in particular the comment I am replying to.)
How about don't trust the US w.r.t. routers but in general they will use most of the information gathered (in the short term) for vague national intelligence purposes (which is probably how they know that the Huawei gear has got spyware.)
Also don't trust Huawei / China.
The best way is to deploy robust encryption for things like email (and everything else) which has actual real stuff in it but is sent on weak crappy protocols email is an example of how slack most companies are, we don't really bother with protecting our secrets since it takes actual work or is not the default. This is the same reason the Europeans want Huawei 5G. We should be using encryption for everything end to end and using OTP encryption for anything that we are serious about. That would at least put things like bugging the routers a waste of energy since you only have encrypted traffic and need to put in real work to actually get something useful.
Are you a lawyer? I think that sending money one person to another can be still legal if sent as a gift or even a non business exchange. Such as here is 50 bucks since you brought dinner last time you were here.
Robin hood allows trading for no broker fee already. https://www.robinhood.com/
Probably a little cheaper to support without blockchain fractional etc....
If a blockchain has trouble coping with the transaction count for crypto how can they handle stock trading transaction volumes. When the market opens on a Monday morning there is probably 10s of millions per second for the first while.
I think the meaning was not trusting 3rd parties. You are trusting them to keep up their activity in mining or whatever to keep the crypto going but that is not trusting them to look after your money but rather to serve their own self interest.
Every transaction does have some level of trust (bitcoin or credit card or cash) since you need to either get the goods/service then pay money or visa versa. But I think the idea of bitcoin (extend to your favorite flavor) is that you don't have to trust them with the transaction so to speak, in that measure it seems to be working well since other than huge amounts being stolen from people by hackers it was not put down to (to my knowledge) fundamental flaws in the system of bitcoin but rather just normal computer security. I am sure that the special wallets could have their own security concerns.
The real issue is not that the system has more trouble with darker skin but that it is interpreted as bias. Seems like the racist button is too easy to press now days.
Reverse engineering tells you what they did but not why the did it and there can be many details not understood if you simply reverse engineer a circuit. Also reverse engineering does not get you the software which is all too valuable and without understanding cannot be written to the same performance. Stealing the software straight is potentially possible from the device as machine language but this does not give the source code and even the source code is weak compared to the source code well documented and understood.
A product that is for sale is a publication of the IP used in that product which if not patented or otherwise protected would make it available for using. Of course some of the IP may be too hard to reverse engineer and therefore fall under the trade secret protection (mainly software) However note that hardware can have millions of gates and do things that are beyond the scope of reasonable effort to reverse engineer. In a similar way that millions of lines of software can be very difficult to reverse engineer. Also there can be subtle protections to protect from reverse engineering that would mean a copy does not work, even simple things like requiring certain parts to be calibrated and using correction factors on a per chip bases to cope with tolerances can be missed in understanding meaning an exact copy does not work in production.
If you do reverse engineer a product and get it to work then you are 1 step behind and you have no way to advance to the next generation until after the product you copied releases it's next generation. However if you can understand it then you can develop it further and produce the next generation yourself. In an old job we used to rip apart our competitors products to see if they had done something amazing but always found the same block diagram represented with a few variations which informed us we were not falling behind. We also looked for what Patents they published as we put our own patent ideas together. It is accepted that the competition can look at the product you release but not that they can see your design notes and find out why you did what you did. We expected our competition to pull our designs apart also of course.
If this argument is accepted as true, there is a bit of a step which is hard to do.
Lets say vendor 1 says I will pay my staff more and so they don't have to depend on tipping then prices go up.
Vendor 2 does not and has lower prices.
All customers go to Vendor 2 and Vendor 1 ceases to operate and the grand plan fails.
My experience says that food is much cheaper in the US than in other countries, I big part of this is tipping I expect.
I really cannot understand why people are against tipping. Does it make life too difficult for you? are you trying to save money? What is the real problem here?
There are plenty of countries where tipping is probably unusual, perhaps you can just live there and not tip and be happy? Or just live in the US and not tip and pretend to be proud of yourself as a non-tipper. Maybe get a shirt that says I am against tipping, expect nothing from me.
This is true with a omni directional transmitter and is true for what Tesla was working on. It does not mean that we cannot transmit power efficiently. The concept of wirelessly charging vehicles or devices over distance is possible (not using Tesla tower technology but using resonant circuits and possibly some other technology details.) They claim to be able to do ~99% efficiency over 100mm at high power. Certainly not something that Tesla was thinking about.
I would not call any of the examples poor management with respect to amazon (Jeff Bezos has made a mess for himself, but Amazon is different to him personally)
This is ruining tipping, only tip the driver with cash is the answer. As for the get rid of tipping people, they can speak for themselves I will tip whenever I want.
Perhaps Amazon can check to see if the postal delivery guy gets tipped to save on their postage too.
This is kind of like the freedom that China gives to Hongkong (and in their future plans Taiwan)
You can have your own elections just as long as you choose the same choice we choose.
As for your vision of the EU just look at Kosivo do you know that they were unified with Serbia but something went wrong.
The EU is a total disaster, trying to equalise all sorts of things. As for the Euro it is going to die what a mess.
The only thing that can keep the EU together is a common purpose, which is either defend themselves against Russia or perhaps being Anti Jew. I cannot really see their common purpose.
Expect to see more countries elect leaders who protect their nation from the EU stink. All eyes are on Brexit and this is one reason why the EU wants to punish them and not negotiate they don't want a big queue behind Britain. There are the nationalists and the globalists, the globalists want to create some sort of equality for all countries which is great if your country sucks but terrible if you are in a good country.
Actually it should be that any miners losing money turn off their equipment which will in turn cause the difficulty level to drop until the mining cost is equal to the market cost. This is of course skewed by, rapid price changes, a longer term investment approach by the miners, and where the miner has a cost offset (such as running on a system where they are not paying power.
Since I did not read the article I am not sure if they bothered to consider transaction fees which would go to the miners also and may make it more profitable than just mining. Transaction fees are also paid in bitcoin but would be over and above the actual bitcoin lottery system for awarding newly minted coins every 10 minutes.
Amazon, google and others are doing the same for people not in prisons. I wonder why people care so much about those in the prisons rather than those that will get sent to prison in the future for failing to use the correct gender pronoun with voice print proof matched via googles 'secret' database.
Or if in China for saying a joke about the party etc.
No I am sure if we had AI in 1984 it would have created an IPhone X 5G. Only trouble is, we could not buy or build the parts nor did we have the cell technology, screen technology, battery technology, capactive touch, manufacturing ability etc, software technology or infrastructure of web, data centers etc . So the first chance to build it would have been when they do build the IPhone X 5G.
To build something future proof you have to know the future, oh and most times also be in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do this very simply and legally no need for privacy. Ever hear of a Tax haven, it works like this. You setup a company in Tax haven then you don't pay taxes.
Not only that but can move your current tax bill there with perfectly legal tricks and measures.
Just a game which is why the socialist agenda will never work, you have to have low taxes or the profits will be elsewhere.
Google sells you a phone from local US company then pays Alphabet International (registered in Ireland) a license fee for the IP 99% of the profit. This works for all their stuff, it takes an accountant and a lawyer to drop your tax bill to zero (probably a refund.)
There maybe a slight amount of embarrassment when it gets published in the media, especially if you are pushing a Liberal Tax the rich agenda.
I assume you mean some sort of firewall to keep bad bots out?
The classification of a bot as bad could be debated (my thinking is there are a lot more bots that could be classified as bad.)
This is the big corp v's single person. Who is going to sue and what would you get if you did win? perhaps they would delete your data, or say they did. Hard to assign a value to what you have signed away.
Legislative measures do have a place, not sure if this is one but it sure is an area of abuse so would be worth looking at.
Google use names for things that just don't help user who use things once in a while. eg Hangouts. I think it is some sort of skype or something but it is the stupidest name on earth. Can you tell someone in business meet you on hangouts for a quick catchup?
I think the issue is google has lots of smart kids that want the world to conform to their little bubble of thinking, they do not put the customer first.
Google+ was just a copy of facebook with no vision and no reason for people to use it, i.e. no compelling reason to switch from facebook. Google should have brought facebook outright for 40Bil or something instead of wasting time here. If facebook cost money (monthly) and Google+ was free it may have worked. Facebook has plenty that could be improved but the google crew are not the team to do it.
What they could have done is found 1000 people and asked them what are 3 things you would like to improve about facebook. Then got 3 thousand things to improve, narrowed it down to
Google have a so much money and ability but seem to lack the straight business sense of Microsoft who brought hotmail and skype etc. This shows that Microsoft know business better than google. Even if google win in a lot of technical areas.
but what are the scientists saying, because there is a lot of sensationalism in the media of what they are saying and there is what they are really saying. What they are really saying is all sorts of things but not a unified consensus about what will happen and what the cause of what has happened is. There is a problem with media and true believers (not yourself probably) who have spouted stuff and then they followed up by staying with the program. There is a thing called climate gate.
When chicken little runs around saying the sky is falling he gets enough media attention and says everything that happens is a sign of the end of the world and what not it becomes difficult to sift out the crap and get to the truth. Have a look at climate gate and you may get a insight into the mindset here. None of that proves anything just that there is a lot of fud. For example these glaciers were supposed to disappear now they are not disappearing but it is bad news and some people expect us all to stay convinced and fearful about the end of world in 7 years.
Some of us are a little jaded by the climate stuff being the end of the world and every news story having to follow the same path.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters.
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.)
But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
This is what makes Trump Trump.
99% would not do that because they have political point to everything they say and it might not go down well since he is dead. Trump says what he is thinking and then causes everyone to talk about for a week. Think of it like this everytime he does something that starts a media fire it just puts him in the spot light (which is what will make him win next time.) and he is on twitter with a big box of matches. He is not politically correct at all but that is a good thing in so many ways (it also has it's down side.)
The real question is after all this time and effort why the left media and politicians won't let go of this and say we did not get him on collusion or obstruction. The answer of course is TDS( Trump Derangement Syndrome ) it has literally sent them round the bend.
Probably you are mixing up evidence with proof here.
Evidence can be (if the case was a murder trial.) you were angry at the person murdered, you made a call to the person in the week before they were murdered and there was an argument that was witnessed between you and them.
Evidence is far from proof and it does not mean he committed a crime.
I wondered if I will get modded down for such a factual unbiased post.
No proof currently means nothing, if he can get proof then good if he cannot (because there is no shadow banning) then even better.
/.
It is difficult to have sanity on a political subject, and if anyone needs banning to me it is the left leaning comments such as in response to this fairly run of the mill event.
Would be nice if we could relax and just let him and twitter sort it out in court, no need to jump to conclusions or worry about the outcome it will be provided in due course.
He seems more relaxed about it than the whole crowd on
To quote Winston Churchill (from memory) - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.
How many extra tonnes of coal are burnt to charge these things? Not that it matters too much as reducing dependence on oil is a multi stage undertaking and probably better to throw extra demand to the electricity grid so it is worth upgrading (financially coal may be better than oil anyway from a national point of view.)
If you first take the word Trump out and then say US Intelligence agencies believe that China is snooping here. Banning US routers is up to the countries in question, the US has not asked them to, banning the Huawei ones will reduce a vulnerability. The US know what they are doing as they did the same.
/. seems to break down into unreadable nonsense (not in particular the comment I am replying to.)
Ignoring this advice is just like shooting yourself in the foot, China wants all your secrets for technology and national purposes. Telco's don't want to do it because they want the path of least resistance and most profit. It is sometimes better to guard yourself and put up a wall to protect yourself.
When it comes to anything with the inference of politics
How about don't trust the US w.r.t. routers but in general they will use most of the information gathered (in the short term) for vague national intelligence purposes (which is probably how they know that the Huawei gear has got spyware.)
Also don't trust Huawei / China.
The best way is to deploy robust encryption for things like email (and everything else) which has actual real stuff in it but is sent on weak crappy protocols email is an example of how slack most companies are, we don't really bother with protecting our secrets since it takes actual work or is not the default. This is the same reason the Europeans want Huawei 5G. We should be using encryption for everything end to end and using OTP encryption for anything that we are serious about. That would at least put things like bugging the routers a waste of energy since you only have encrypted traffic and need to put in real work to actually get something useful.
Are you a lawyer? I think that sending money one person to another can be still legal if sent as a gift or even a non business exchange. Such as here is 50 bucks since you brought dinner last time you were here.
Robin hood allows trading for no broker fee already. ....
https://www.robinhood.com/
Probably a little cheaper to support without blockchain fractional etc
If a blockchain has trouble coping with the transaction count for crypto how can they handle stock trading transaction volumes. When the market opens on a Monday morning there is probably 10s of millions per second for the first while.
I think the meaning was not trusting 3rd parties. You are trusting them to keep up their activity in mining or whatever to keep the crypto going but that is not trusting them to look after your money but rather to serve their own self interest.
Every transaction does have some level of trust (bitcoin or credit card or cash) since you need to either get the goods/service then pay money or visa versa. But I think the idea of bitcoin (extend to your favorite flavor) is that you don't have to trust them with the transaction so to speak, in that measure it seems to be working well since other than huge amounts being stolen from people by hackers it was not put down to (to my knowledge) fundamental flaws in the system of bitcoin but rather just normal computer security. I am sure that the special wallets could have their own security concerns.
The real issue is not that the system has more trouble with darker skin but that it is interpreted as bias. Seems like the racist button is too easy to press now days.
Reverse engineering tells you what they did but not why the did it and there can be many details not understood if you simply reverse engineer a circuit. Also reverse engineering does not get you the software which is all too valuable and without understanding cannot be written to the same performance. Stealing the software straight is potentially possible from the device as machine language but this does not give the source code and even the source code is weak compared to the source code well documented and understood.
A product that is for sale is a publication of the IP used in that product which if not patented or otherwise protected would make it available for using. Of course some of the IP may be too hard to reverse engineer and therefore fall under the trade secret protection (mainly software) However note that hardware can have millions of gates and do things that are beyond the scope of reasonable effort to reverse engineer. In a similar way that millions of lines of software can be very difficult to reverse engineer. Also there can be subtle protections to protect from reverse engineering that would mean a copy does not work, even simple things like requiring certain parts to be calibrated and using correction factors on a per chip bases to cope with tolerances can be missed in understanding meaning an exact copy does not work in production.
If you do reverse engineer a product and get it to work then you are 1 step behind and you have no way to advance to the next generation until after the product you copied releases it's next generation. However if you can understand it then you can develop it further and produce the next generation yourself. In an old job we used to rip apart our competitors products to see if they had done something amazing but always found the same block diagram represented with a few variations which informed us we were not falling behind. We also looked for what Patents they published as we put our own patent ideas together. It is accepted that the competition can look at the product you release but not that they can see your design notes and find out why you did what you did. We expected our competition to pull our designs apart also of course.
If this argument is accepted as true, there is a bit of a step which is hard to do.
Lets say vendor 1 says I will pay my staff more and so they don't have to depend on tipping then prices go up.
Vendor 2 does not and has lower prices.
All customers go to Vendor 2 and Vendor 1 ceases to operate and the grand plan fails.
My experience says that food is much cheaper in the US than in other countries, I big part of this is tipping I expect.
I really cannot understand why people are against tipping. Does it make life too difficult for you? are you trying to save money? What is the real problem here?
There are plenty of countries where tipping is probably unusual, perhaps you can just live there and not tip and be happy? Or just live in the US and not tip and pretend to be proud of yourself as a non-tipper. Maybe get a shirt that says I am against tipping, expect nothing from me.
This is true with a omni directional transmitter and is true for what Tesla was working on. It does not mean that we cannot transmit power efficiently. The concept of wirelessly charging vehicles or devices over distance is possible (not using Tesla tower technology but using resonant circuits and possibly some other technology details.) They claim to be able to do ~99% efficiency over 100mm at high power. Certainly not something that Tesla was thinking about.
I would not call any of the examples poor management with respect to amazon (Jeff Bezos has made a mess for himself, but Amazon is different to him personally)
This is ruining tipping, only tip the driver with cash is the answer. As for the get rid of tipping people, they can speak for themselves I will tip whenever I want.
Perhaps Amazon can check to see if the postal delivery guy gets tipped to save on their postage too.
This is kind of like the freedom that China gives to Hongkong (and in their future plans Taiwan)
You can have your own elections just as long as you choose the same choice we choose.
As for your vision of the EU just look at Kosivo do you know that they were unified with Serbia but something went wrong.
The EU is a total disaster, trying to equalise all sorts of things. As for the Euro it is going to die what a mess.
The only thing that can keep the EU together is a common purpose, which is either defend themselves against Russia or perhaps being Anti Jew. I cannot really see their common purpose.
Expect to see more countries elect leaders who protect their nation from the EU stink. All eyes are on Brexit and this is one reason why the EU wants to punish them and not negotiate they don't want a big queue behind Britain. There are the nationalists and the globalists, the globalists want to create some sort of equality for all countries which is great if your country sucks but terrible if you are in a good country.
Actually it should be that any miners losing money turn off their equipment which will in turn cause the difficulty level to drop until the mining cost is equal to the market cost. This is of course skewed by, rapid price changes, a longer term investment approach by the miners, and where the miner has a cost offset (such as running on a system where they are not paying power.
Since I did not read the article I am not sure if they bothered to consider transaction fees which would go to the miners also and may make it more profitable than just mining. Transaction fees are also paid in bitcoin but would be over and above the actual bitcoin lottery system for awarding newly minted coins every 10 minutes.
Those pills are making you paranoid, ease off.
Amazon, google and others are doing the same for people not in prisons. I wonder why people care so much about those in the prisons rather than those that will get sent to prison in the future for failing to use the correct gender pronoun with voice print proof matched via googles 'secret' database.
Or if in China for saying a joke about the party etc.
No I am sure if we had AI in 1984 it would have created an IPhone X 5G. Only trouble is, we could not buy or build the parts nor did we have the cell technology, screen technology, battery technology, capactive touch, manufacturing ability etc, software technology or infrastructure of web, data centers etc . So the first chance to build it would have been when they do build the IPhone X 5G.
To build something future proof you have to know the future, oh and most times also be in the future.