Ireland is defending Apple because the Irish government knows that allowing companies like Apple to pay a pitifully low level of tax is the only way to get large international companies to employ people there.
The real effect is to undercut the attempts of other countries in the same economic block to collect reasonable taxes.
First off, Skylake and newer chips are not all PCIe based - Windows 7 and prior need a PCI bus to work.
As far as I can tell, your statement is at best misleading and at worst: untrue.
According to the sources that I can find, the Skylake CPUs either have PCIe on-board, or the CPU requires the use of a chipset that will provide PCIe. In other words, every system that uses these processors will have PCIe busses.
win 7 etc will still work just fine on it, they just won't get tweaked performance. anyone that wants to stay on older OS's will be able to do so.
Individually, it doesn't. It supports the overall strategy of pushing all Microsoft's user base to Win 10. They will advertise that optimum performance with these processors is only available under Windows 10 and not under any earlier versions.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the UBI won't result in everyone getting a boost in income that the government has to fund somehow?
If you're taxing back the UBI, it's not a UBI, it's something different.
No, it's not something different. It's a UBI. You are pushing a strawman here: your own definition of a UBI that no one is proposing (except you and a few other people who can't or more likely, won't understand).
That person earning $60k: one can expect that he/she would receive the UBI, but his/her taxes would increase by an equivalent amount, so no net gain or loss for either him/her or the government.
You also ignored my point about a UBI making a number of means-tested benefits unnecessary. Also, it would be quite reasonable to offset a UBI against social security payments.
I realize that the ideas proposed by me go against your idea of a UBI, but no one is seriously proposing that your idea should be implemented.
U.S. law, Israeli company. I would assume they wouldn't have to follow U.S. law.
Yes, I understand that. However, the USA has extradited people from abroad for breaking into computers based in the USA. Also, some of the users may be in the USA.
Yes, the implementation is completely flawed. They don't ensure that the Pre lines are always shorter than the regular lines. What's the point of signing up for Pre, if, when you get to the airport, the Pre line is closed and you just have to go through the regular line?
What you don't see is that a universal basic income will be balanced against reductions in means-tested benefits and increases in taxation.
There will be an income level at which an ordinary taxpayer, with 2 children will balance out the UBI income against increased taxes.
There are other benefits: homeless people incur huge medical bills. In part because the only medical services available to them are those that are the most expensive to provide (emergency rooms). A UBI may reduce these huge bills.
Of course, the other big way to save money would be a single-payer healthcare system. The US doesn't have the best healthcare: it only has the most expensive healthcare.
Perhaps you would like to go and tell the people in Oakland, CA that they are not in the USA. Or was that part too far down the summary for your reading skills?
.. Y Combinator has also launched a test program in Oakland, California.
But that wasn't lesson enough... without consulting any kids or grand-kids, she runs out and buys a Windows phone.
I doubt that she went out with the intention of buying a Windows Phone. More likely, she went out with the intention of buying something that was not an iPhone and there was a really good commission offered to the sales droids for selling Windows Phone on that day.
"they are sending players onto private property", No they are not. The Pokemon are spawning in "public areas" not private. I have many hundreds of spwan points mapped and none are on private property. They spawn on sidewalks, not back yards. Plus you can catch them from 5 meters away so, you are wrong on every assumption you have made.
Where to start with this one? Usually, I don't respond to ACs, but I will in this case.
1. Just because you don't know of any Pokestops on private property does not mean that these do not exist. You fail at logic.
2. The private property is sufficiently large that the precise locations are far more than 5 meters from any public location.
You are the one with false assumptions. Go crawl back into your Mom's basement.
At least in my experience. I have reported that they are sending players onto private property and, despite photos, their response (if they actually do respond) is inevitably "insufficient evidence". At some point, someone is going to get hurt and they are going to be sued.
If they don't give a sh*t about sending people onto private property (and active construction sites), why should they worry about user privacy?
It's the app model. Ignore the risks and the law, until you can be successful enough to get the law changed.
Let me suggest that you find a corrupt IRS agent, and use this person to reduce your taxes below what is legally required, then, when audited, blame the IRS agent. See how far that gets you.
You don't even need a corrupt IRS agent. Just get an accountant to file an incorrect tax return on your behalf and see if you have to pay the correct tax when the issue is discovered.
Apple knew (or should have known) the details of the EU agreements. Just like the USA, where ignorance of the law is no defence.
My debit card has a gigantic Visa logo on the front. Doesn't yours?
So what? That logo doesn't make it a credit card, and it certainly doesn't mean that the protections that are required by law for credit card holders apply to your debit card.
Ultimately, that's the difference: if there is fraud on a debit card, your refund depends on the bank's policies and customer service reps. If there is fraud on a credit card, the law requires the credit card company to refund most, if not all of the fraudulent charges.
I choose to use a card that puts the law on my side. And unless you get a discount for using that debit card, you are not benefiting from the lower merchant fees on it.
Do you try to minimize your tax burden? Do you take any deductions?
I did try to minimize my tax burden. However, what I did not do was make an illegal bargain with the IRS to reduce the amount of tax that I pay.
Are others not allowed to because they made more money?
It's not about the amount, it's about an agreement between Apple and the Irish government that violated the international treaties between the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries.
We're big enough to do business worldwide but not so big that we get the "good" BPO vendors or hire "good" employees to do our offshore work.
It has nothing to do with size. The problem is that your CXX execs are too tight-fisted to pay for and develop quality outsourcing. I know, because I worked for a vary small company that was able to hire the very best offshore employees.
Likewise, I don't use a debit card, except as a last resort. Instead, I use a credit card. My card has seen fraudulent transactions as high as $3000. In every case, because of the legal protections provided to credit card holders, these fraudulent transactions did not cost me anything.
But my point was that, in your case, the thieves probably got away with the money. The transactions were not reversed all the way through the chain to the thieves' bank account.
My thoughts exactly. I've been able to get my bank to refund as little as $200 before due to identity theft using my debit card, and that was when an item was purchased, so someone had to actually eat the charges. In this case, it seems like they see where the money went.
There was no recovery of your money. Someone ate the cost of the loss: either your bank or the merchant.
Maybe since it has to do with international borders, it'll just take a little more time.
No, it's gone. The money will have flowed through a jurisdiction where the banks will not cooperate in recovery.
Slashdot Mirror
Ireland is defending Apple because the Irish government knows that allowing companies like Apple to pay a pitifully low level of tax is the only way to get large international companies to employ people there.
The real effect is to undercut the attempts of other countries in the same economic block to collect reasonable taxes.
As far as I can tell, your statement is at best misleading and at worst: untrue.
According to the sources that I can find, the Skylake CPUs either have PCIe on-board, or the CPU requires the use of a chipset that will provide PCIe. In other words, every system that uses these processors will have PCIe busses.
Individually, it doesn't. It supports the overall strategy of pushing all Microsoft's user base to Win 10. They will advertise that optimum performance with these processors is only available under Windows 10 and not under any earlier versions.
It's nothing to do with costs and everything to do with ramming Windows 10 down the throats of Microsoft's users.
OK, you are just trolling now. Goodbye.
You are quite the idiot, aren't you:
Do you see that? "It would replace part of Finland's social security net."
What you are confusing is your own imagination for facts. Perhaps you should stop treating Fox news as an authoritative source?
No, it's not something different. It's a UBI. You are pushing a strawman here: your own definition of a UBI that no one is proposing (except you and a few other people who can't or more likely, won't understand).
That person earning $60k: one can expect that he/she would receive the UBI, but his/her taxes would increase by an equivalent amount, so no net gain or loss for either him/her or the government.
You also ignored my point about a UBI making a number of means-tested benefits unnecessary. Also, it would be quite reasonable to offset a UBI against social security payments.
I realize that the ideas proposed by me go against your idea of a UBI, but no one is seriously proposing that your idea should be implemented.
I'm done arguing against your strawman.
No, it was a rhetorical question, designed to show how f*cked up things are in the USA.
Yes, I understand that. However, the USA has extradited people from abroad for breaking into computers based in the USA. Also, some of the users may be in the USA.
Yes, the implementation is completely flawed. They don't ensure that the Pre lines are always shorter than the regular lines. What's the point of signing up for Pre, if, when you get to the airport, the Pre line is closed and you just have to go through the regular line?
How is using this software not illegal under the CFAA?
I do see this.
What you don't see is that a universal basic income will be balanced against reductions in means-tested benefits and increases in taxation.
There will be an income level at which an ordinary taxpayer, with 2 children will balance out the UBI income against increased taxes.
There are other benefits: homeless people incur huge medical bills. In part because the only medical services available to them are those that are the most expensive to provide (emergency rooms). A UBI may reduce these huge bills.
Of course, the other big way to save money would be a single-payer healthcare system. The US doesn't have the best healthcare: it only has the most expensive healthcare.
Maybe the US government could scale back the golden cow (otherwise known as the military).
Perhaps you would like to go and tell the people in Oakland, CA that they are not in the USA. Or was that part too far down the summary for your reading skills?
I doubt that she went out with the intention of buying a Windows Phone. More likely, she went out with the intention of buying something that was not an iPhone and there was a really good commission offered to the sales droids for selling Windows Phone on that day.
Not sure if you are being serious, but: if your company isn't paying you, then you are already in violation of your H1 visa.
Where to start with this one? Usually, I don't respond to ACs, but I will in this case.
1. Just because you don't know of any Pokestops on private property does not mean that these do not exist. You fail at logic.
2. The private property is sufficiently large that the precise locations are far more than 5 meters from any public location.
You are the one with false assumptions. Go crawl back into your Mom's basement.
At least in my experience. I have reported that they are sending players onto private property and, despite photos, their response (if they actually do respond) is inevitably "insufficient evidence". At some point, someone is going to get hurt and they are going to be sued.
If they don't give a sh*t about sending people onto private property (and active construction sites), why should they worry about user privacy?
It's the app model. Ignore the risks and the law, until you can be successful enough to get the law changed.
I don't agree. In "my"* experience, they are terrible. Go look through your junk mail folder some time and you may be surprised at what is there.
* Note: when I say "my", I am referring to work-related emails that I send to a colleague that his copy of Outlook regularly categorizes as SPAM.
Let me suggest that you find a corrupt IRS agent, and use this person to reduce your taxes below what is legally required, then, when audited, blame the IRS agent. See how far that gets you.
You don't even need a corrupt IRS agent. Just get an accountant to file an incorrect tax return on your behalf and see if you have to pay the correct tax when the issue is discovered.
Apple knew (or should have known) the details of the EU agreements. Just like the USA, where ignorance of the law is no defence.
So what? That logo doesn't make it a credit card, and it certainly doesn't mean that the protections that are required by law for credit card holders apply to your debit card.
Ultimately, that's the difference: if there is fraud on a debit card, your refund depends on the bank's policies and customer service reps. If there is fraud on a credit card, the law requires the credit card company to refund most, if not all of the fraudulent charges.
I choose to use a card that puts the law on my side. And unless you get a discount for using that debit card, you are not benefiting from the lower merchant fees on it.
I did try to minimize my tax burden. However, what I did not do was make an illegal bargain with the IRS to reduce the amount of tax that I pay.
It's not about the amount, it's about an agreement between Apple and the Irish government that violated the international treaties between the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries.
It has nothing to do with size. The problem is that your CXX execs are too tight-fisted to pay for and develop quality outsourcing. I know, because I worked for a vary small company that was able to hire the very best offshore employees.
Likewise, I don't use a debit card, except as a last resort. Instead, I use a credit card. My card has seen fraudulent transactions as high as $3000. In every case, because of the legal protections provided to credit card holders, these fraudulent transactions did not cost me anything.
But my point was that, in your case, the thieves probably got away with the money. The transactions were not reversed all the way through the chain to the thieves' bank account.
There was no recovery of your money. Someone ate the cost of the loss: either your bank or the merchant.
No, it's gone. The money will have flowed through a jurisdiction where the banks will not cooperate in recovery.
On a smaller scale, a similar scam is happening with house purchases in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere)