My prediction is that Equifax will heap all the blame on the now former execs and claim that all is now good. It won't be, but that will be the PR position.
The only real issue now is how aggressive the SEC will be in investigating and prosecuting these former execs.
I assume that there is some kind of agreement between the execs and Equifax, intended to shield both parties. Whether this works and whether one side decides to renege on the agreement may determine the outcome of any SEC investigation.
I was looking at delayed delivery of an email that went via outlook.com just yesterday. This was an old email: the problem happened in August, I think.
Looking at the headers, the email was first delivered to Microsoft's network and spent almost a day entirely within Microsoft's network.
After a day, came Microsoft's first attempt to deliver the email to my server, which resulted in a temporary failure (I use postgrey). It then took more than a day before Microsoft attempted delivery again.
Why anyone relies on Microsoft for infrastructure, I have no idea. While all cloud infrastructure providers have issues, Microsoft appears to have more.
Contrast all that with the non-ad link that the search string "procter and gamble" generates, which is simply "http://us.pg.com/".
I searched for Procter and Gamble, then right-clicked on the first non-ad link that google shows. Here is the URL (remember, this isn't an ad): https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
I have noticed a spike of anti-Silicon Valley stories recently. The fact that ZeroHedge has a story tends to confirm my suspicion that someone (the Koch brothers? The Mercers?) is running a campaign aimed at creating a negative view of Silicon Valley.
I think someone is spending some serious money on an anti-Silicon Valley campaign. Is that wasted advertising?
When you have some spare time, look up the definition of "democracy". Hint: it's not as restrictive as you think and includes the way that the USA is structured.
If you can't trust them to keep your data secure, is there any point having business with them?
You don't do business with them. You are not the customer, you are the product.
Banks and other companies do business with them. They sell your private data to the banks, financial institutions, employers, private investigators, etc.. Do the real customers have any real interest in your data being private?
But when you pay someone to be a salesperson they know EXACTLY how much income they generate.
That's true, but not the complete picture.
In general (VC funded startups excepted), what is important to a company is profit, not revenue. A sale person who increases revenue simply by agreeing to lower prices and hence at reduced profit is not so valuable to the company.
This is a very important concern in software companies, where the cost of manufacturing is zero, yet, customers must pay enough to support future product development.
I think that we have evidence that the higher temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2, etc. are clearly not unprecedented. The issue is that those higher temperatures, then and now, are not so conducive to human life.
We can be reasonably certain that the rate of increase is unprecedented.
I predict that they won't pay a penny. Not a single cent.
They are too well connected.
The credit bureaus can already ruin someone's life with wrong information and not suffer any consequences for what should be a crime, or at least libel.
The epinephrine is a cheap generic; the autoinjector is $600 of mechanism wrapped around it.
No, it's only about $30 of mechanism wrapped around it. The price is completely unrelated to the cost of manufacturing and entirely due to near-monopoly created by regulations that, strangely, the Republicans don't seem interested in getting rid of.
From the state's perspective, this is an annual service, with annual taxes due.
Did Google bill the consumer every year? When did the sale actually take place?
The sale took place once, right at the beginning of the contract. The fact that Google chooses not to recognize the revenue immediately is not relevant to the fact that the sales taxes were incurred right at the beginning of the contract.
You don't like my refrigerator analogy? OK, let's modify it a bit: I buy a new refrigerator. It's a special model, which is not immediately available. I pay 100% of the cost at the time I place the order. Between the time I order/pay and the time of delivery, the rate of sales tax goes up. Do I owe more sales tax? If you believe so, please explain how this is so.
I think that Google made a second mistake. The vendor is responsible for paying the sales tax. Thus, having already billed the customer for this item, Google had no right to go back and retroactively increase it. Google was responsible for any increase. Remember that the customer was not billed for and did not pay for any services after the increase in sales tax.
Ah, the last refuge of someone who knows they have lost the argument: claim that there is a flaw in the argument or source information, but fail to detail what it actually is.
You lost. Stop digging, and crawl back under your bridge.
Welcome to my "foes" list: you don't have anything useful to add to any discussions.
Let's imagine that I buy a large appliance. Say, a refrigerator.
The store charges the taxes. I pay everything: the price of the appliance and the taxes.
12 months later, the sales tax rate increases. Do I now owe more sales taxes on my purchase of the appliance? Obviously, no. So how is this different from the situation in the article?
I don't think that you understand the meaning of "up front".
Google made a sale of $300. They should have applied the tax that was due on the day that the $300 payment was made. Tane did not pay in instalments.
In fact, I'll go further: I think that Google broke the law. Google collected sales tax at the time of the $300 payment and held onto it, instead of paying it to the state that quarter.
Slashdot Mirror
My prediction is that Equifax will heap all the blame on the now former execs and claim that all is now good. It won't be, but that will be the PR position.
The only real issue now is how aggressive the SEC will be in investigating and prosecuting these former execs.
I assume that there is some kind of agreement between the execs and Equifax, intended to shield both parties. Whether this works and whether one side decides to renege on the agreement may determine the outcome of any SEC investigation.
It's raining in Redmond today.
Do you really expect cloud services to be unaffected by rain?
I was looking at delayed delivery of an email that went via outlook.com just yesterday. This was an old email: the problem happened in August, I think.
Looking at the headers, the email was first delivered to Microsoft's network and spent almost a day entirely within Microsoft's network.
After a day, came Microsoft's first attempt to deliver the email to my server, which resulted in a temporary failure (I use postgrey). It then took more than a day before Microsoft attempted delivery again.
Why anyone relies on Microsoft for infrastructure, I have no idea. While all cloud infrastructure providers have issues, Microsoft appears to have more.
I searched for Procter and Gamble, then right-clicked on the first non-ad link that google shows. Here is the URL (remember, this isn't an ad):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
That depends on who "they" are.
I have noticed a spike of anti-Silicon Valley stories recently. The fact that ZeroHedge has a story tends to confirm my suspicion that someone (the Koch brothers? The Mercers?) is running a campaign aimed at creating a negative view of Silicon Valley.
I think someone is spending some serious money on an anti-Silicon Valley campaign. Is that wasted advertising?
This is not a solution to any real problem.
The problem is companies that don't want to hear about vulnerabilities. Those companies are unlikely to put up security.txt entries.
"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." Matthew Henry.
When you have some spare time, look up the definition of "democracy". Hint: it's not as restrictive as you think and includes the way that the USA is structured.
Nope.
Foxconn is NOT just getting a tax cut. The state is paying cash to Foxconn. Most of that $3B is cash out of the state coffers that is paid to Foxconn.
You don't do business with them. You are not the customer, you are the product.
Banks and other companies do business with them. They sell your private data to the banks, financial institutions, employers, private investigators, etc.. Do the real customers have any real interest in your data being private?
My phone has a removable battery, but it's last year's model: LG G5. The G6 doesn't have a removable battery.
That's true, but not the complete picture.
In general (VC funded startups excepted), what is important to a company is profit, not revenue. A sale person who increases revenue simply by agreeing to lower prices and hence at reduced profit is not so valuable to the company.
This is a very important concern in software companies, where the cost of manufacturing is zero, yet, customers must pay enough to support future product development.
The music industry could easily keep track of all this information.
The simple fact is that they would prefer to rip off artists. Poor information is merely one way to achieve that objective.
Perhaps because category at landfall doesn't tell us anything about climate, while category at peak does.
I think that we have evidence that the higher temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2, etc. are clearly not unprecedented. The issue is that those higher temperatures, then and now, are not so conducive to human life.
We can be reasonably certain that the rate of increase is unprecedented.
I predict that they won't pay a penny. Not a single cent.
They are too well connected.
The credit bureaus can already ruin someone's life with wrong information and not suffer any consequences for what should be a crime, or at least libel.
No, it's only about $30 of mechanism wrapped around it. The price is completely unrelated to the cost of manufacturing and entirely due to near-monopoly created by regulations that, strangely, the Republicans don't seem interested in getting rid of.
I think that, in this case, the business had already foundered. Had he not gone to Burning Man, nothing would have changed.
Sigh. Try RTFA!
See that? "sales tax"! What part of "sales tax" do you not understand?
The tax wasn't even due to the service: it was a one-time installation fee:
It wasn't an annual tax. Google spread the $300 cost over 1 year, not 7 years.
Try reading the fine article. It might help to prevent people thinking that your reading and comprehension skills are lacking.
Ah, the Google is infallible argument. Google can do no wrong.
Did Google bill the consumer every year? When did the sale actually take place?
The sale took place once, right at the beginning of the contract. The fact that Google chooses not to recognize the revenue immediately is not relevant to the fact that the sales taxes were incurred right at the beginning of the contract.
You don't like my refrigerator analogy? OK, let's modify it a bit:
I buy a new refrigerator. It's a special model, which is not immediately available. I pay 100% of the cost at the time I place the order. Between the time I order/pay and the time of delivery, the rate of sales tax goes up. Do I owe more sales tax? If you believe so, please explain how this is so.
I think that Google made a second mistake. The vendor is responsible for paying the sales tax. Thus, having already billed the customer for this item, Google had no right to go back and retroactively increase it. Google was responsible for any increase. Remember that the customer was not billed for and did not pay for any services after the increase in sales tax.
Ah, the last refuge of someone who knows they have lost the argument: claim that there is a flaw in the argument or source information, but fail to detail what it actually is.
You lost. Stop digging, and crawl back under your bridge.
Welcome to my "foes" list: you don't have anything useful to add to any discussions.
Just wait until a fracker starts injecting waste water into the water table near you .....
Let's imagine that I buy a large appliance. Say, a refrigerator.
The store charges the taxes. I pay everything: the price of the appliance and the taxes.
12 months later, the sales tax rate increases. Do I now owe more sales taxes on my purchase of the appliance? Obviously, no. So how is this different from the situation in the article?
I don't think that you understand the meaning of "up front".
Google made a sale of $300. They should have applied the tax that was due on the day that the $300 payment was made. Tane did not pay in instalments.
In fact, I'll go further: I think that Google broke the law. Google collected sales tax at the time of the $300 payment and held onto it, instead of paying it to the state that quarter.