When I first started investigating accessing the iPlayer from outside the UK, I found that all you need is to use a UK-based DNS server. That's it. There was no check on IP address used to download the media. Other UK services required that the media download went to a UK IP address (after showing the adverts!).
At some point the BBC might shut off access to IP addresses that are in datacenters since these are more likely to be using a VPN.
I kill someone by hitting them with my car at speed. On the way to hitting them, I get a speeding ticket, which I contest and win. According to your logic, my actions have been declared lawful because there are no judgements against me.
Just as there is a difference between a not-guilty verdict and actually not committing any crime, there is a difference between a ruling that they are not breaking a specific law and a ruling that they are "lawful".
In limited circumstances, I think that sharing a Netflix password is clearly OK. I base that statement on the fact that Netflix has a concept of users different users within one account.
The question is perhaps: what does "limited" mean in this context? Family member who lives with me? Family member who lives elsewhere? Friend?
That's not going to help you if you are the passenger in an Uber car that gets into an accident. Just wait until someone who was hit by an Uber car sues the Uber passenger.
I find it hard to believe that Facebook UK under-declared its income by 266 million pouinds (371m against reported 105m) and HMRC aren't interested.
If you followed UK news, you would know that this has been discussed quite a lot in the past (not so much recently). Of course HMRC are interested, but it appears that what Facebook is doing has been legal.
Google the terms "google tax uk" to see what is going on. The laws are being changed.
Reported revenue. In the article that I linked to, the real revenue for 2103 was estimated at 371 Million pounds. Or are you simply not capable of reading anything that might be critical of Facebook?
Paying their employees well and paying more taxes than they would if they took the money in profit is not honorable according to you? I think there is something wrong with your sense of "honor"
False dichotomy. Facebook manipulates its reported revenue in order to minimize reported UK profits. If Facebook paid more taxes, it would still pay the same bonuses. Do you really think that those bonuses are paid out of a sense of altruism? Surely even your libertarian philosophy would allow you to see this simple fact?
This is my last response to you. Let me suggest that you go and collect your check from the Koch brothers (or whatever "think tank" or theirs is paying you) and then do some real thinking, instead of parroting their self-entitled talking points.
This is actually the way I'd like to see all businesses work. Distribute profits among all employees and tax it as individual income. In a time of stagnant wages and rising inequality what about this practice is bad?
But that's not what is happening. Facebook's profits are artificially low because Facebook recognizes and reports a lot of its UK revenue in another country (such as Ireland).
What happens is that Facebook (and Google, etc. ) employ people in the UK with "Sales" in their job titles. These UK-based "Sales" people make sales to UK-based companies, yet Facebook and Google (and probably many others) report that the sale took place in another country (probably Ireland).
So this isn't Facebook distributing all its profits to employees, instead, it is Facebook hiding its profits.
Which means that anybody who complains about this as if it were depriving the UK government of money is a blithering idiot.
No, you are ignorant.
This isn't a matter of paying bonuses vs. paying corporation tax. This is a matter of accurately reporting revenue in the country where it was really earned. What is happening is that Facebook is reporting that sales made by UK-based sales people to UK-based customers (to send advertisements to UK-based computers) is earned in Ireland.
If the revenue were properly reported and the taxes paid, the bonuses would still be paid, so the income tax to the UK government would be the same.
What's going on is that Facebook (and other companies like Google) claim that their revenue occurs in other countries (such as Ireland).
Facebook, Google, etc, employ many people with "Sales" titles in the UK. These UK-based employees sell to UK companies, yet these Facebook, Google, etc. claim that the sales were not made in the UK and so the revenue that is a result of the activitites of these UK-based sales people is not included in the profit and loss calculations for Facebook's UK tax accounting.
According to the FEC, contributions to Democrats so far total US$64.2 million, while contributions to Republicans total US$61.2 million.
Following Citizens United, the amount that is contributed to candidates isn't the end of the matter. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money with its source remaining dark during the election cycle. The Super PAC's are apparently able to remain independent of the candidates while they share offices with them.
I don't know the intricate details, I do know that updating Raspbian on a Pi2 to use systemd reduces boot time from 30 seconds to 15... that's pretty cool in my book.
Let's be clear about what is going on: some of that time reduction is because systemd doesn't do things like checking that an IP address is not already in use on the network when bringing up an ehternet interface (at least, that's the default setting in systemd)
Had they learned, they would not have a Windows Phone.
I mean, who has a Windows phone these days? The app store is missing many basic apps and those that exist frequently don't work as well as the Android or IOS version of the app.
I don't think that I have seen a Windows phone except at the AT&T store.
Let's say that 15% of that is operations that's still $375m back into the economy in the form of wages.
Wages, to whom? Largely to people who move to the area. Yes, they will spend some of their money in the town, so there will be a trickle down effect to the current residents. But that's what we are talking about: a trickle.
Furthermore those people would probably want to eat somewhere while in town and maybe even visit a shop or two which would further boost the local economy.
Do you really think that those 1%-ers really want to eat in the restaurants that exist in the town today. So, perhaps some new retaurants will be opened and again, money will trickle down. But don't forget that the current residents are already paying higher rates of tax.
That's the fundamental problem with such calculations of economic benefit. They confuse revenue with actual income to the residents. Instead, the real calculation should be whether the investment by the town will lead to an increase in tax revenues that exceeds the investment. Otherwise, it's like a company proposing an investment on the basis of increased revenue, but ignoring what the effects on profits will be.
... that F1 cars are hybrids these days? Apparently not. They use systems that are referred to as "KERS". In fact, according to this article, the Audi Le Mans car uses a hybrid system originally developed by an F1 team.
As EMV chip card readers get cheaper, I keep waiting for banks to offer an on-line verification service where they supply a chip card reader to the card owner, which can then be used to verify on-line transactions
My UK bank does this for payments made through the bank's website. I have a small card reader which my bank sent to me. I insert my debit card, enter the PIN, then, I enter a number that the website gives me into the reader and the reader returns another number which is entered into a box on the payment page. The website doesn't always ask for this type of verification -- only if it is a new payee or I have not sent money to that payee for a while.
Cheques (checks) have almost disappeared in the UK because people just do direct bank-to-bank transfers for payments that would be made via a cheque (check).
If you're going to make out of the ordinary purchases for overseas, or travel overseas, you always want to call your bank ahead of time. This is a standard operating procedure, and nothing to complain about on Slashdot.
Doesn't work.
I travel to the same country about once per year. I call my credit card company in advance and usually, I can make one purchase in that country and after that, my card is blocked.
Sometimes, I even get a fraud warning txt for a small purchase in a US airport where I have a stopover. The tickets were bought using the same credit card, so the card company knows that I will be travelling (as well as my call to warn the credit card company).
No, it's better. Google knows where traffic is stacked up in real time.
During my evening commute in SIlicon Valley, the "real time" data shown in the Google maps app on my Android phone is useless. It's so inaccurate that it provides no value.
The cab companies/cabbies are mostly scared of one main thing. They invested a massive amount of money to by their exploitation licence. The main regulation that they are concerned with is this quota.
I don't believe that London taxi licenses are the same as many US cities. In London, I don't think that there is a limit on taxi licenses, but the license is difficult to obtain. In order to get a taxi license, a driver must pass a test on "the knowledge". Taxi drivers are required to know every street and the fastest routes there (including knowing traffic patterns). I believe that learning "the knowledge" typically takes about 2 years of study and riding round London on a motorbike. Taxi licenses require a level of knowedge and skill, instead of a huge puchase of a medallion.
It can be argued that the street knowledge should no longer be required, in these days of GPS navigation. However, licenses also require a certain type of vehicle and the vehicle must also pass an inspection.
You know that: 1. Caffeine is available from other sources. 2. If you don't take any caffeine, you are just as alert as a frequent caffeine user (after some acclimatization to the low/no caffeine diet). In fact, you average leverl of alertness will be higher than the frequent caffeine ingestor.
All yo are doing with your jolt Cola is wasting money.
What most people are missing is that they don't need a warrant because you're outside the U.S. wanting in. Supreme Court cases have established that U.S. Constitutional protections apply only to people (both citizens and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants) on U.S. soil.
If he surrenders the laptop, what right does immigration have to prevent a US citizen from entering the country? Surely, he has a presumtive right to entry when he is at the border.
That's why Bush built a prison in Guantanamo Bay - that's Cuban soil, not U.S., so prisoners there wouldn't be protected by that pesky Constitution.
Could I murder someone in an airport before going through immigration and not be prosecuted? After all, if it is not US soil, then US laws don't apply. There is a world of difference between Gitmo and an airport.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure she exists? She looks like a digital animation to me.
When I first started investigating accessing the iPlayer from outside the UK, I found that all you need is to use a UK-based DNS server. That's it. There was no check on IP address used to download the media. Other UK services required that the media download went to a UK IP address (after showing the adverts!).
At some point the BBC might shut off access to IP addresses that are in datacenters since these are more likely to be using a VPN.
I kill someone by hitting them with my car at speed. On the way to hitting them, I get a speeding ticket, which I contest and win. According to your logic, my actions have been declared lawful because there are no judgements against me.
Just as there is a difference between a not-guilty verdict and actually not committing any crime, there is a difference between a ruling that they are not breaking a specific law and a ruling that they are "lawful".
In limited circumstances, I think that sharing a Netflix password is clearly OK. I base that statement on the fact that Netflix has a concept of users different users within one account.
The question is perhaps: what does "limited" mean in this context? Family member who lives with me? Family member who lives elsewhere? Friend?
That's not going to help you if you are the passenger in an Uber car that gets into an accident. Just wait until someone who was hit by an Uber car sues the Uber passenger.
The judgement did not say that Uber is lawful.
It only said that Uber does not violate the law against minicabs using taxi meters to determine charges. There are other lawsuits pending.
Dogs are not as smart as Chimpanzees, who will hoard food and then "cook" it later.
If you followed UK news, you would know that this has been discussed quite a lot in the past (not so much recently). Of course HMRC are interested, but it appears that what Facebook is doing has been legal.
Google the terms "google tax uk" to see what is going on. The laws are being changed.
Reported revenue. In the article that I linked to, the real revenue for 2103 was estimated at 371 Million pounds. Or are you simply not capable of reading anything that might be critical of Facebook?
False dichotomy. Facebook manipulates its reported revenue in order to minimize reported UK profits. If Facebook paid more taxes, it would still pay the same bonuses. Do you really think that those bonuses are paid out of a sense of altruism? Surely even your libertarian philosophy would allow you to see this simple fact?
This is my last response to you. Let me suggest that you go and collect your check from the Koch brothers (or whatever "think tank" or theirs is paying you) and then do some real thinking, instead of parroting their self-entitled talking points.
Oh really?
It may be legal, it's not honourable.
But that's not what is happening. Facebook's profits are artificially low because Facebook recognizes and reports a lot of its UK revenue in another country (such as Ireland).
What happens is that Facebook (and Google, etc. ) employ people in the UK with "Sales" in their job titles. These UK-based "Sales" people make sales to UK-based companies, yet Facebook and Google (and probably many others) report that the sale took place in another country (probably Ireland).
So this isn't Facebook distributing all its profits to employees, instead, it is Facebook hiding its profits.
No, you are ignorant.
This isn't a matter of paying bonuses vs. paying corporation tax. This is a matter of accurately reporting revenue in the country where it was really earned. What is happening is that Facebook is reporting that sales made by UK-based sales people to UK-based customers (to send advertisements to UK-based computers) is earned in Ireland.
If the revenue were properly reported and the taxes paid, the bonuses would still be paid, so the income tax to the UK government would be the same.
What's going on is that Facebook (and other companies like Google) claim that their revenue occurs in other countries (such as Ireland). Facebook, Google, etc, employ many people with "Sales" titles in the UK. These UK-based employees sell to UK companies, yet these Facebook, Google, etc. claim that the sales were not made in the UK and so the revenue that is a result of the activitites of these UK-based sales people is not included in the profit and loss calculations for Facebook's UK tax accounting.
Following Citizens United, the amount that is contributed to candidates isn't the end of the matter. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money with its source remaining dark during the election cycle. The Super PAC's are apparently able to remain independent of the candidates while they share offices with them.
Let's be clear about what is going on: some of that time reduction is because systemd doesn't do things like checking that an IP address is not already in use on the network when bringing up an ehternet interface (at least, that's the default setting in systemd)
Had they learned, they would not have a Windows Phone.
I mean, who has a Windows phone these days? The app store is missing many basic apps and those that exist frequently don't work as well as the Android or IOS version of the app.
I don't think that I have seen a Windows phone except at the AT&T store.
Wages, to whom? Largely to people who move to the area. Yes, they will spend some of their money in the town, so there will be a trickle down effect to the current residents. But that's what we are talking about: a trickle.
Do you really think that those 1%-ers really want to eat in the restaurants that exist in the town today. So, perhaps some new retaurants will be opened and again, money will trickle down. But don't forget that the current residents are already paying higher rates of tax.
That's the fundamental problem with such calculations of economic benefit. They confuse revenue with actual income to the residents. Instead, the real calculation should be whether the investment by the town will lead to an increase in tax revenues that exceeds the investment. Otherwise, it's like a company proposing an investment on the basis of increased revenue, but ignoring what the effects on profits will be.
Spending money is one thing. Giving money to corporations in return for vague promises of jobs is entirely another.
... that F1 cars are hybrids these days? Apparently not. They use systems that are referred to as "KERS". In fact, according to this article, the Audi Le Mans car uses a hybrid system originally developed by an F1 team.
My UK bank does this for payments made through the bank's website. I have a small card reader which my bank sent to me. I insert my debit card, enter the PIN, then, I enter a number that the website gives me into the reader and the reader returns another number which is entered into a box on the payment page. The website doesn't always ask for this type of verification -- only if it is a new payee or I have not sent money to that payee for a while.
Cheques (checks) have almost disappeared in the UK because people just do direct bank-to-bank transfers for payments that would be made via a cheque (check).
Doesn't work.
I travel to the same country about once per year. I call my credit card company in advance and usually, I can make one purchase in that country and after that, my card is blocked.
Sometimes, I even get a fraud warning txt for a small purchase in a US airport where I have a stopover. The tickets were bought using the same credit card, so the card company knows that I will be travelling (as well as my call to warn the credit card company).
During my evening commute in SIlicon Valley, the "real time" data shown in the Google maps app on my Android phone is useless. It's so inaccurate that it provides no value.
I don't believe that London taxi licenses are the same as many US cities. In London, I don't think that there is a limit on taxi licenses, but the license is difficult to obtain. In order to get a taxi license, a driver must pass a test on "the knowledge". Taxi drivers are required to know every street and the fastest routes there (including knowing traffic patterns). I believe that learning "the knowledge" typically takes about 2 years of study and riding round London on a motorbike. Taxi licenses require a level of knowedge and skill, instead of a huge puchase of a medallion.
It can be argued that the street knowledge should no longer be required, in these days of GPS navigation. However, licenses also require a certain type of vehicle and the vehicle must also pass an inspection.
You know that:
1. Caffeine is available from other sources.
2. If you don't take any caffeine, you are just as alert as a frequent caffeine user (after some acclimatization to the low/no caffeine diet). In fact, you average leverl of alertness will be higher than the frequent caffeine ingestor.
All yo are doing with your jolt Cola is wasting money.
If he surrenders the laptop, what right does immigration have to prevent a US citizen from entering the country? Surely, he has a presumtive right to entry when he is at the border.
Could I murder someone in an airport before going through immigration and not be prosecuted? After all, if it is not US soil, then US laws don't apply. There is a world of difference between Gitmo and an airport.