Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.
How about secret agreements with the IRS? From the article:
"After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn't discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter."
Let's be clear, the term "Secret Agreements" is misleading. The APA process is transparent to the US Government, but the results of APA filings are confidential. The reporter wouldn't have been able to get a copy of the ruling, but that doesn't make it a secret.
Here's how the APA process works; the Company provides detailed economic and tax data for the transaction to the IRS, along with a detailed economic analysis that calculates the income they will generate in each country that is subject to the APA. They do the same with the foreign country's tax authority.
The foreign country's tax authority and the IRS then negotiate over the terms of the APA. If the IRS doesn't like the terms, they are free to not agree to the APA.
The IRS has a lot of experience with APAs. They have a dedicated full-time team of lawyers, economists, and CPAs who have negotiated these contracts with hundreds of large companies, and Congress regularly reviews the results of APA negotiations.
Once the IRS and the foreign tax authority have reached a mutual agreement, the client is bound by those terms. The Company filing for the APA isn't party to the negotiations, by the way.
A large majority of large taxpayers enter into APAs; it gives them assurance as to their transfer-related tax payments for 5 years. Without an APA they would be subject to audit and restatements, and they don't like the uncertainty.
Maybe you could measure it from both ends. If you're getting different results then it's been cut more than once, and you can just replace the whole in-between section.
Does the USA have the concept of a writ of Mandamus?
We do, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that the discresion of District Attorneys to choose which cases to prosecute is absolute. That is, we can't force a DA to prosecute a case that s/he doesn't want to prosecute. On the positive side, DA is an elected position, so voters have the final say.
Do you know what's better than video games for improving hand-eye coordination? Physical activity. Let your kids go outside and play. Throwing a ball will improve coordination more than any game.
And if you want to improve hearing, then you'll find that the surround sound outside is awesome. I bet that reacting to real sounds is better for your hearing than any video game, even one with 5.1 surround sound
Would someone please elaborate on this? I have seen this in other comments and do not understand the reasoning
When playing the black pieces you have a disadvantage because black always moves second. Basically, the player of the white pieces has a one-tempo advantage and can to some extent determine the shape of the game (by choosing which variation of the opening will be played). Strong chess players can take advantage of the first move advantage when playing white by forcing black to defend or play an opening which the black player isn't strong at.
With these disadvantages, black's behavior is usually to hold on and try to draw. Then to try and win when he has the white pieces (because the players alternate colors).
Don't expect a computer to ever win a blitz match, because computer's just don't have the insight to play well in those circumstances, which is where human innovation shows through.
I have to utterly disagree with this statement. Blitz games are quick games, such as a time limit of 5 minutes per side per game Blitz games are where computers are strongest, where their tactical ability, coolness under pressure, and lack of obvious mistakes shine through.
In quicker games, even weaker chess programs can anihilate strong human grandmasters. It's the longer games where humans are able to hold their own.
There's a saying among chess grandmasters--"Draw with black, win with white."
Anyway, I have a copy of Deep Fritz--the same program Kramnik is playing against. It's a comercially available chess program, designed to run on multiple processor computers. If you have a spare 90USD lying around, pick up a copy. It's a brutally strong program. You can buy it here: http://icdchess.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi (I have no affiliation with ICDchess, other than as a satisfied customer)
Those of you who registered your disgust with NeoAudio at download.com might want to take a look at the comments page--every commment prior to 7 August has been deleted. Magically their rating seems to have jumped. go figure
http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10137006.html
The lawsuit is about wording in the contract. Specifically that the renters thought it was $1/mile in the "out of bounds" area and Budget charged them $1/mile on their whole trip.
With this kind of disagreement, I would think there was no "meeting of the minds" and therefore the contract terms would be invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.
How about secret agreements with the IRS? From the article: "After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn't discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter."
Let's be clear, the term "Secret Agreements" is misleading. The APA process is transparent to the US Government, but the results of APA filings are confidential. The reporter wouldn't have been able to get a copy of the ruling, but that doesn't make it a secret.
Here's how the APA process works; the Company provides detailed economic and tax data for the transaction to the IRS, along with a detailed economic analysis that calculates the income they will generate in each country that is subject to the APA. They do the same with the foreign country's tax authority.
The foreign country's tax authority and the IRS then negotiate over the terms of the APA. If the IRS doesn't like the terms, they are free to not agree to the APA.
The IRS has a lot of experience with APAs. They have a dedicated full-time team of lawyers, economists, and CPAs who have negotiated these contracts with hundreds of large companies, and Congress regularly reviews the results of APA negotiations.
Once the IRS and the foreign tax authority have reached a mutual agreement, the client is bound by those terms. The Company filing for the APA isn't party to the negotiations, by the way.
A large majority of large taxpayers enter into APAs; it gives them assurance as to their transfer-related tax payments for 5 years. Without an APA they would be subject to audit and restatements, and they don't like the uncertainty.
Maybe you could measure it from both ends. If you're getting different results then it's been cut more than once, and you can just replace the whole in-between section.
We do, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that the discresion of District Attorneys to choose which cases to prosecute is absolute. That is, we can't force a DA to prosecute a case that s/he doesn't want to prosecute. On the positive side, DA is an elected position, so voters have the final say.
And if you want to improve hearing, then you'll find that the surround sound outside is awesome. I bet that reacting to real sounds is better for your hearing than any video game, even one with 5.1 surround sound
When playing the black pieces you have a disadvantage because black always moves second. Basically, the player of the white pieces has a one-tempo advantage and can to some extent determine the shape of the game (by choosing which variation of the opening will be played). Strong chess players can take advantage of the first move advantage when playing white by forcing black to defend or play an opening which the black player isn't strong at.
With these disadvantages, black's behavior is usually to hold on and try to draw. Then to try and win when he has the white pieces (because the players alternate colors).
I have to utterly disagree with this statement. Blitz games are quick games, such as a time limit of 5 minutes per side per game Blitz games are where computers are strongest, where their tactical ability, coolness under pressure, and lack of obvious mistakes shine through.
In quicker games, even weaker chess programs can anihilate strong human grandmasters. It's the longer games where humans are able to hold their own.
Anyway, I have a copy of Deep Fritz--the same program Kramnik is playing against. It's a comercially available chess program, designed to run on multiple processor computers. If you have a spare 90USD lying around, pick up a copy. It's a brutally strong program. You can buy it here: http://icdchess.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi (I have no affiliation with ICDchess, other than as a satisfied customer)
Those of you who registered your disgust with NeoAudio at download.com might want to take a look at the comments page--every commment prior to 7 August has been deleted. Magically their rating seems to have jumped. go figure http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10137006.html
With this kind of disagreement, I would think there was no "meeting of the minds" and therefore the contract terms would be invalid.