By "retire" I mean "not use anymore". Of course, we'll still be stuck supporting the legacy crap for decades to come. Much as we'll be stuck supporting HTML5 when the new shiny comes over the horizon.
It's basically just a bunch of new features that are wrapped up into a bundle with the label "version 5" slapped on it. It's usually accompanied by CSS3, which adds new features for styling stuff.
There are two reasons people like HTML5, in my experience. Firstly, the canvas element lets you do arbitrary drawing with javascript, opening up a large range of applications for pure-HTML that used to rely on stuff like Flash or Applets (most notably games). Secondly, HTML5 does a lot of stuff natively, that used to have to be added (somewhat hackishly) by javascript and UI libraries - form validation, colour pickers, date selectors. When you add CSS3 into the mix, you can make quite rich UIs with very little (if any) use of javascript.
Basically, HTML5 will let us retire a whole bunch of crufty old legacy hacks from the bad days (Javascript everywhere, Flash, Applets, etc)
Are tax rates so high that it is necessary to engage in complicated tax avoidance schemes in western democracies to be successful in business?
When you get to international scale, tax is just like everything else; it's a competitive market. Once they have the size to make it feasible, corporations will go to whatever country offers them the best benefits for the least money, just the same as corporations inside the US shop around from state to state looking for the best tax deal.
It's no different to what happened in Soviet Russia with individuals, really. Those that were the most productive, and earning the most money, were those "taxed" the most. They didn't like that, so they left the country. Faced with the mass exodus of their most valuable citizens, the USSR made it illegal to leave. We're just seeing the US government go through the same cycle. Rather than control its own massive spending on military campaigns and welfare, the US is trying to squeeze more and more income out of their tax base, and their tax base is leaving the country. All this crying about "tax avoidance" is just the first step in trying to compel them to stay.
Then everyone says: "Hey look, the USA is ignoring international patent treaties. I guess we're not bound by them any more either." China sends the USA a gift basket.
Up until about a decade or so ago in Australia, some clever private individuals established companies and worked their 9 - 5 job through the company, enjoying much lower tax rates and other such benefits of corporate law (shifting losses to other years, etc).
The Australian Tax Office stepped-in and declared if you look like a private individual, walk like a private individual and quack like a private individual... you're a private individual and will pay tax at the appropriate rate. You'll also receive a fine for trying to be clever.
This isn't the way I remember it - unless we're remembering different things. From what I recall, companies were forcing their employees to get a business number, and hiring them as contractors so as to avoid paying for entitlements like superannuation, holidays, etc. The Fair Work Ombudsman slapped them down.
In any case, you'll pay more tax as a company than you will as an individual - you will pay corporate tax on your company's profits, and then personal income tax in all money that you receive from your company. If you spend corporate money as if it was your own to dodge tax, then ASIC will want to have a long, hard talk with you, regardless of what the ATO does.
Then you'll drive every retail industry into the ground.
Say I'm an electronics store. I operate on a profit margin of about 2%, because there's really not that much margin in electronics (or most retail, except the high end). I buy $100,000 worth of stock. I sell that entire volume for $102,000, making myself $2000 profit. I then receive a tax bill based off my revenue of $100,000, instead of my actual income of $2,000.
And I'm sure a licensing requirement would have totally stopped that. I mean, he might have been willing to flaunt federal laws against sexual exploitation of a minor, but he would totally have respected state licensing requirements. Right?
They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did.
Yes, I'm sure that when they sat down to formulate legislative regulations on corporate finance records, they thoroughly intended that it be used for punishing fishermen who caught undersized fish.
If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location. Hell, take it up a notch, and rely on the second law of thermodynamics.
Stupidly vague laws resulting in legislative over-reach is one of many reasons the law is an ass.
But not everyone is convinced the rules go far enough. "The rule is far too weak to address the grave misconduct of predatory for-profit colleges," writes David Halperin.
Says the man who works at a public college teaching English, women’s studies, comparative literature, and classical studies - fields noted for the career prospects of their graduates.
MP3 players existed before the iPod Smartphones existed before the iPhone Tablets existed before the iPad Smartwatches exist, and the iWatch doesn't
Apple doesn't create new categories; they polish and popularise them - sort of the way Blizzard has done with the RTS, action-RPG, and MMO genres in gaming.
Consider, I'm going to roll a 6 sided dice. What number am I going to roll?
The whole of climate science and meteorology is predicated on the fact that those systems are not random. Yeah, the more iterations of a random event, the closer you get to the statistical average. But that doesn't mean that the more variables you add to a system, the more it converges on a predictable single value.
I'm not sure I'm going to agree with this statement however. Is an apple a simpler fruit than an orange?
Is an orange the aggregate of millions of apples over a long period of time?
However, while I'm sure that both 'sides' in this debate are equally guilty of seeing what they want to see, that which confirms their observer bias, I'm not sure that ridiculing weather forecasts is a valid argument against the accuracy and predictive power (or lack thereof) of climate models.
Really? Weather is a simpler, shorter-term analysis than climate, pretty much by definition. If we can't perform the simpler task particularly well, it argues against us being able to do the more complex.
It depends what you mean by "drones". Missiles would basically be one-use drones, with the firing ship serving as their control centre. In space battles, distances would likely be large enough for relativistic time lags in comms between ship and missile to be a thing, so they'd have to be capably of autonomy after they'd moved beyond comms range of their ship.
I've got a Note 3, and I frequently hold it up to my head to talk on it. I also gave up caring about what people think of based on what technology I use a couple of decades ago.
Give me an objective definition of "market" that makes the doesn't make the distinction between software products and support services, yet does distinguish between, say, operating systems and web browsers.
I doubt you have one. You just draw the line on a case-by-case basis wherever it supports your argument.
Plenty of companies offer free services to attract customers, while other companies may charge for the same services. That is not illegal.
This is incorrect. The only reason it seems this way is because it takes so long to gather evidence, and the ensuing court cases take so long to eventuate.
So, what you're saying is that there are pending court cases against, say RedHat, because they offer their OS free of charge, undercutting Microsoft's offering?
Or maybe against Google, or OpenStreetMaps, for uncompetitively providing free services that conflict with other services who do not charge?
Slashdot Mirror
By "retire" I mean "not use anymore". Of course, we'll still be stuck supporting the legacy crap for decades to come. Much as we'll be stuck supporting HTML5 when the new shiny comes over the horizon.
It's basically just a bunch of new features that are wrapped up into a bundle with the label "version 5" slapped on it. It's usually accompanied by CSS3, which adds new features for styling stuff.
There are two reasons people like HTML5, in my experience. Firstly, the canvas element lets you do arbitrary drawing with javascript, opening up a large range of applications for pure-HTML that used to rely on stuff like Flash or Applets (most notably games). Secondly, HTML5 does a lot of stuff natively, that used to have to be added (somewhat hackishly) by javascript and UI libraries - form validation, colour pickers, date selectors. When you add CSS3 into the mix, you can make quite rich UIs with very little (if any) use of javascript.
Basically, HTML5 will let us retire a whole bunch of crufty old legacy hacks from the bad days (Javascript everywhere, Flash, Applets, etc)
Are tax rates so high that it is necessary to engage in complicated tax avoidance schemes in western democracies to be successful in business?
When you get to international scale, tax is just like everything else; it's a competitive market. Once they have the size to make it feasible, corporations will go to whatever country offers them the best benefits for the least money, just the same as corporations inside the US shop around from state to state looking for the best tax deal.
It's no different to what happened in Soviet Russia with individuals, really. Those that were the most productive, and earning the most money, were those "taxed" the most. They didn't like that, so they left the country. Faced with the mass exodus of their most valuable citizens, the USSR made it illegal to leave. We're just seeing the US government go through the same cycle. Rather than control its own massive spending on military campaigns and welfare, the US is trying to squeeze more and more income out of their tax base, and their tax base is leaving the country. All this crying about "tax avoidance" is just the first step in trying to compel them to stay.
Then everyone says: "Hey look, the USA is ignoring international patent treaties. I guess we're not bound by them any more either." China sends the USA a gift basket.
Up until about a decade or so ago in Australia, some clever private individuals established companies and worked their 9 - 5 job through the company, enjoying much lower tax rates and other such benefits of corporate law (shifting losses to other years, etc).
The Australian Tax Office stepped-in and declared if you look like a private individual, walk like a private individual and quack like a private individual ... you're a private individual and will pay tax at the appropriate rate. You'll also receive a fine for trying to be clever.
This isn't the way I remember it - unless we're remembering different things. From what I recall, companies were forcing their employees to get a business number, and hiring them as contractors so as to avoid paying for entitlements like superannuation, holidays, etc. The Fair Work Ombudsman slapped them down.
In any case, you'll pay more tax as a company than you will as an individual - you will pay corporate tax on your company's profits, and then personal income tax in all money that you receive from your company. If you spend corporate money as if it was your own to dodge tax, then ASIC will want to have a long, hard talk with you, regardless of what the ATO does.
Then you'll drive every retail industry into the ground.
Say I'm an electronics store. I operate on a profit margin of about 2%, because there's really not that much margin in electronics (or most retail, except the high end). I buy $100,000 worth of stock. I sell that entire volume for $102,000, making myself $2000 profit. I then receive a tax bill based off my revenue of $100,000, instead of my actual income of $2,000.
And I'm sure a licensing requirement would have totally stopped that. I mean, he might have been willing to flaunt federal laws against sexual exploitation of a minor, but he would totally have respected state licensing requirements. Right?
That's pheasant. Although, traditionally, it was fine to harass peasants, but peasants weren't allowed to hunt pheasants.
Bloody English.
It's not vague, it's inclusive.
Same thing. It's inclusive, by being vague.
They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did.
Yes, I'm sure that when they sat down to formulate legislative regulations on corporate finance records, they thoroughly intended that it be used for punishing fishermen who caught undersized fish.
If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location. Hell, take it up a notch, and rely on the second law of thermodynamics.
Stupidly vague laws resulting in legislative over-reach is one of many reasons the law is an ass.
I know, right. I've been making payments online by stuffing bank notes into my drive case for years. Funny, I never seem to get the goods I order.
You mean, programs about educating people on how to engage in useful and productive activities?
How terrible.
But not everyone is convinced the rules go far enough. "The rule is far too weak to address the grave misconduct of predatory for-profit colleges," writes David Halperin.
Says the man who works at a public college teaching English, women’s studies, comparative literature, and classical studies - fields noted for the career prospects of their graduates.
David Halperin
MP3 players existed before the iPod
Smartphones existed before the iPhone
Tablets existed before the iPad
Smartwatches exist, and the iWatch doesn't
Apple doesn't create new categories; they polish and popularise them - sort of the way Blizzard has done with the RTS, action-RPG, and MMO genres in gaming.
Or, you believe the government should be limited in the things they are allowed to do, removing the incentive for bribing them in the first place.
"Tax evasion" has one legal meaning and another colloquial one. Colloquially speaking, "tax evasion" includes tax avoidance of this character.
In other words, tax evasion is what other people do when I don't like it.
Consider, I'm going to roll a 6 sided dice. What number am I going to roll?
The whole of climate science and meteorology is predicated on the fact that those systems are not random. Yeah, the more iterations of a random event, the closer you get to the statistical average. But that doesn't mean that the more variables you add to a system, the more it converges on a predictable single value.
I'm not sure I'm going to agree with this statement however. Is an apple a simpler fruit than an orange?
Is an orange the aggregate of millions of apples over a long period of time?
However, while I'm sure that both 'sides' in this debate are equally guilty of seeing what they want to see, that which confirms their observer bias, I'm not sure that ridiculing weather forecasts is a valid argument against the accuracy and predictive power (or lack thereof) of climate models.
Really? Weather is a simpler, shorter-term analysis than climate, pretty much by definition. If we can't perform the simpler task particularly well, it argues against us being able to do the more complex.
What on earth does this have to do with the topic at-hand? Do you post this on any medical science related story?
It depends what you mean by "drones". Missiles would basically be one-use drones, with the firing ship serving as their control centre. In space battles, distances would likely be large enough for relativistic time lags in comms between ship and missile to be a thing, so they'd have to be capably of autonomy after they'd moved beyond comms range of their ship.
I've got a Note 3, and I frequently hold it up to my head to talk on it. I also gave up caring about what people think of based on what technology I use a couple of decades ago.
So how much advertising did Dell buy ro get this story run?
Give me an objective definition of "market" that makes the doesn't make the distinction between software products and support services, yet does distinguish between, say, operating systems and web browsers.
I doubt you have one. You just draw the line on a case-by-case basis wherever it supports your argument.
Yes. They're using their profits from selling their support product to fund development of their free operating system.
Plenty of companies offer free services to attract customers, while other companies may charge for the same services. That is not illegal.
This is incorrect. The only reason it seems this way is because it takes so long to gather evidence, and the ensuing court cases take so long to eventuate.
So, what you're saying is that there are pending court cases against, say RedHat, because they offer their OS free of charge, undercutting Microsoft's offering?
Or maybe against Google, or OpenStreetMaps, for uncompetitively providing free services that conflict with other services who do not charge?