No other country on earth tries to collect taxes on extraterritorial transactions.
Not true. A lot of countries tax business income from entities that are registered within its borders.
If a business is headquartered in, let's say Dublin, then Ireland gets to collect taxes on any income (profit, depending on the local laws) on the worldwide income of that business.
This is what is happening a lot, and this is how companies keep their taxes low. They create legal entities in tax-friendly companies, and divert income there.
The U.S. does not tax businesses for income out of foreign entities. It does tax natural persons, citizens and lawful permanent residents, on their worldwide income.
You're free to do that. The Samsung update disable the charging capability, that's it. As long as you plug it into a power source, you can use it for your embedded purpose.
The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private entities.
I scrolled waaaay to far down to finally see this.
And on a side note, just like the "story" yesterday, this is another "news" item about what Trump might do. In other words, he hasn't done anything wrong yet.
Bullshit story, slow newsday. How this got to the front page goes beyond me.
If they could easily offshore, why would they take the time and effort to bring foreign workers to the U.S.? Bringing someone in means hiring immigration attorneys, government fees (those H1-B visas don't come cheap), pay local wages (which are still higher than rupees, especially in Silicon Valley) and wait months for the entire process to take place.
On top of that, I've seen companies undo their offshoring because they found out that working with Bangalore and Chennai can be difficult. Sure, standalone projects can be done remote without much effort, but it's difficult to integrate working across continents, language barriers, timezones and rupees.
or cancel projects.
If they project could be cancelled without business impact, it never served a valid business reason and should have been cancelled anyway.
But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.
It can most certainly work that way. If States indeed choose to count absentee ballots when they can only make a difference in the outcome, that would make some economical sense.
Did you vote on Tuesday?
I did not. I'll have to wait until next time, after naturalization.
The absentee ballots may not be counted right away if they can't possibly affect the election results. However, the final certified totals do include all absentee ballots. See http://help.vote.org/article/8...
You, good sir, are hereby awarded the most helpful comment of the day on slashdot award.
which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.
If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.
And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.
They do when you want to connect that business to a government created service like the internet. Feel free to create your own global network with your own rules though.
Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
If I build a private network with my own money and offer services on it the way I want to, the government has no business regulating what I do. Period.
Dyslexia. I meant to say the opposite. Every is allowed to have their own opinion.
The point of my comment was that you can have your own opinion, and you do not have to agree with someone else. But to boycott an entire company is a bit silly to me.
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
This. Exactly this.
Trump might be an idiotic bigot, and Hillary might be a liar and crook, but that does not mean anyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And sure, it is your right to not to business with someone you don't agree with, but that makes you an even bigger idiot because that's not how a society will function. It's more Kindergarten behavior.
You're no more aiding illegal activity by running a Tor nod of any kind than your ISP is by allowing network traffic. Or Verizon is with their 4G network. The Internet, in all it's forms, is used for an unfathomable amount of illegal activity. Nothing will stop it. Ever. Policing infrastructure is an absurd idea.
Right. I think you need to come up with better arguments.
The fact that nothing will stop illegal activity means noting: nothing will stop people from murdering each other, yet we have all these laws.
Policing the internet is a must, but we are at a point in our technological revolution where technology is way more advanced than our policing abilities. And, let's be honest, at a point where the public's trust in the police as an institution is at an all-time low.
I get your point, but are any of these companies Palo Alto based?
Nope. But a lot of their workers are. And those are the ones that are bringing the revenues. Spending their paychecks in the city. Paying property taxes, utility bills. The companies themselves usually don't pay a lot to a city directly. It's all indirect.
That's why I'm saying: remove the 10 biggest tech companies and Silicon Valley will become a silicon desert with a huge housing crash.
Just take a look at Detroit to see how quick a booming economy can crash.
Do they really think their downtown will improve by kicking all the jobs out of it?
It's time to make Silicon Valley a Silicon Desert.
Look at the City of San Francisco. They want all the tech companies to come in, giving lots of tax breaks and other incentives so they can pride themselves on having all this innovation. But then they complain about all the tech workers coming in and living in the city. Then they complain about buses picking up workers. Did you ever hear a greenie complain about people using a bus? Well, go to SF.
Palo Alto is doing the same thing now. They want all the tech money, but not the tech companies. And watch them whining when large companies decide to move out.
Just imagine Cisco, Google, Facebook and Apple deciding to move out of the area completely, with all their workers. Imagine how many mortgages will be under water, how many folks will lose their jobs, how many tax revenue these cities will have to do without.
Apple & friends have done nothing illegal. They made a deal with the Irish government where the Irish government provided tax incentives in exchange for local jobs. That's nothing new, a lot of countries, including the US, do so.
What is new is that non-elected non-judiciary officials have the power to "rule" over an independent state's tax laws and regulations. This is what drives member countries out of the EU.
It's almost as if you had a bunch of them sit together for a working lunch with one topic: how can we get money out of large tech companies?
Don't forget, Putin does the same to his opponents. They're always arrested for "tax evasion". Remember Gazprom?
Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.
Except that an aircraft flying over your property is not entering your property.
If I fly at 1500ft over your property, I'm not entering your property. In fact, the FARs allow for me to get to 500ft over your property. Below that I'm violating minimum altitude rules.
My point is that the FAA governs airspace and airplanes. Any craft that flies on its own power is an aircraft, remotely piloted or not. And the FAA governs all of that, not the individual states. A state cannot legally prohibit me from flying anywhere, only the FAA can.
Slashdot Mirror
No other country on earth tries to collect taxes on extraterritorial transactions.
Not true. A lot of countries tax business income from entities that are registered within its borders.
If a business is headquartered in, let's say Dublin, then Ireland gets to collect taxes on any income (profit, depending on the local laws) on the worldwide income of that business.
This is what is happening a lot, and this is how companies keep their taxes low. They create legal entities in tax-friendly companies, and divert income there.
The U.S. does not tax businesses for income out of foreign entities. It does tax natural persons, citizens and lawful permanent residents, on their worldwide income.
Have a snickers.
Remove the battery, it is no longer a risk.
You're free to do that. The Samsung update disable the charging capability, that's it. As long as you plug it into a power source, you can use it for your embedded purpose.
The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private entities.
I scrolled waaaay to far down to finally see this.
And on a side note, just like the "story" yesterday, this is another "news" item about what Trump might do. In other words, he hasn't done anything wrong yet.
Bullshit story, slow newsday. How this got to the front page goes beyond me.
Valid options are to offshore
If they could easily offshore, why would they take the time and effort to bring foreign workers to the U.S.? Bringing someone in means hiring immigration attorneys, government fees (those H1-B visas don't come cheap), pay local wages (which are still higher than rupees, especially in Silicon Valley) and wait months for the entire process to take place.
On top of that, I've seen companies undo their offshoring because they found out that working with Bangalore and Chennai can be difficult. Sure, standalone projects can be done remote without much effort, but it's difficult to integrate working across continents, language barriers, timezones and rupees.
or cancel projects.
If they project could be cancelled without business impact, it never served a valid business reason and should have been cancelled anyway.
But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.
It can most certainly work that way. If States indeed choose to count absentee ballots when they can only make a difference in the outcome, that would make some economical sense.
Did you vote on Tuesday?
I did not. I'll have to wait until next time, after naturalization.
The absentee ballots may not be counted right away if they can't possibly affect the election results. However, the final certified totals do include all absentee ballots. See http://help.vote.org/article/8...
You, good sir, are hereby awarded the most helpful comment of the day on slashdot award.
which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.
If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.
And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.
So instead it will be decided by a few "battleground states" whose needs don't reflect the rest of the country's. Got it.
Wisconsin and Michigan were considered blue states, until they became a surprise battleground state.
AKA, every state can become a battleground state.
think the favorite female president of the Trump supporters would be Katrina Pearson or Judge Jeanene Pirro
Condoleezza Rice.
go back to the whiteboard
APK was right all along! C:\WINDOWS\HOSTS is the solution ;)
*goes to hide under a rock*
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "presumption of innocence."
The presumption of innocence is a rule of law that indeed also applies to politicians. However, you're forgetting one aspect:
She is not on trial in a court of law. She is on trial in the media. And that works a bit differently.
It seems the article news is old as well. Russia had this weapon deployed during the annexation of Crimea.
Yes. More specifically, they used a BUK system to shoot a passenger airliner, Malaysian MH17, out of the sky.
I have yet to see anyone charged with murder over this.
"But how can you vote with your wallet, Mr. Anderson, when there are no competitors in your area?"
That might be true in some parts of the U.S., it most certainly is not in The Netherlands.
That shithole has enough competition in the broadband ISP market to make this a viable option.
http://www.allisps.com/en/list...
They do when you want to connect that business to a government created service like the internet. Feel free to create your own global network with your own rules though.
You clearly have no idea how the internet works.
Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet? If I build a private network with my own money and offer services on it the way I want to, the government has no business regulating what I do. Period.
Seriously, what are you on?
Dyslexia. I meant to say the opposite. Every is allowed to have their own opinion.
The point of my comment was that you can have your own opinion, and you do not have to agree with someone else. But to boycott an entire company is a bit silly to me.
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
This. Exactly this.
Trump might be an idiotic bigot, and Hillary might be a liar and crook, but that does not mean anyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And sure, it is your right to not to business with someone you don't agree with, but that makes you an even bigger idiot because that's not how a society will function. It's more Kindergarten behavior.
You're no more aiding illegal activity by running a Tor nod of any kind than your ISP is by allowing network traffic. Or Verizon is with their 4G network. The Internet, in all it's forms, is used for an unfathomable amount of illegal activity. Nothing will stop it. Ever. Policing infrastructure is an absurd idea.
Right. I think you need to come up with better arguments.
The fact that nothing will stop illegal activity means noting: nothing will stop people from murdering each other, yet we have all these laws.
Policing the internet is a must, but we are at a point in our technological revolution where technology is way more advanced than our policing abilities. And, let's be honest, at a point where the public's trust in the police as an institution is at an all-time low.
the adults really should have not been letting him play with it
Plot twist: perhaps they did it on purpose so they can now sue Samsung and cash in.
I get your point, but are any of these companies Palo Alto based?
Nope. But a lot of their workers are. And those are the ones that are bringing the revenues. Spending their paychecks in the city. Paying property taxes, utility bills. The companies themselves usually don't pay a lot to a city directly. It's all indirect.
That's why I'm saying: remove the 10 biggest tech companies and Silicon Valley will become a silicon desert with a huge housing crash.
Just take a look at Detroit to see how quick a booming economy can crash.
Do they really think their downtown will improve by kicking all the jobs out of it?
It's time to make Silicon Valley a Silicon Desert.
Look at the City of San Francisco. They want all the tech companies to come in, giving lots of tax breaks and other incentives so they can pride themselves on having all this innovation. But then they complain about all the tech workers coming in and living in the city. Then they complain about buses picking up workers. Did you ever hear a greenie complain about people using a bus? Well, go to SF.
Palo Alto is doing the same thing now. They want all the tech money, but not the tech companies. And watch them whining when large companies decide to move out.
Just imagine Cisco, Google, Facebook and Apple deciding to move out of the area completely, with all their workers. Imagine how many mortgages will be under water, how many folks will lose their jobs, how many tax revenue these cities will have to do without.
Palo Alto should shut the F up really quick.
That deal has been deemed illegal.
Apple & friends have done nothing illegal. They made a deal with the Irish government where the Irish government provided tax incentives in exchange for local jobs. That's nothing new, a lot of countries, including the US, do so.
What is new is that non-elected non-judiciary officials have the power to "rule" over an independent state's tax laws and regulations. This is what drives member countries out of the EU.
It's almost as if you had a bunch of them sit together for a working lunch with one topic: how can we get money out of large tech companies?
Don't forget, Putin does the same to his opponents. They're always arrested for "tax evasion". Remember Gazprom?
Texas and ISIS are the only places in the world where you can just shoot down anybody who enters "your" property.
Except that an aircraft flying over your property is not entering your property.
If I fly at 1500ft over your property, I'm not entering your property. In fact, the FARs allow for me to get to 500ft over your property. Below that I'm violating minimum altitude rules.
My point is that the FAA governs airspace and airplanes. Any craft that flies on its own power is an aircraft, remotely piloted or not. And the FAA governs all of that, not the individual states. A state cannot legally prohibit me from flying anywhere, only the FAA can.
Wouldn't the ISP's have to police this activity too?
No. The ISP is not the police. The ISP does not get to decide what content is legal and what is not. Only a court order can do that.
Rightscorp and their friends are trying to circumvent the expensive court process by going directly after the ISP. That's it.