A zero tax rate would allow a huge advantage. After all, China has a 25% rate, and even Mexico has 30%. On automated assembly and manufacturing where there is less hand work, the US could easily compete, and foreign companies would be moving production to the US.
An economic case can be made for a zero corporate tax rate. After all, those profits go SOMEPLACE, and eventually into someone's pocket, where they are taxed. Keeping the profits from flowing off-shore is a bit of a problem, but if the larger portion of corporate spending was done domestically (physical plant, employment, materials, etc) you might be better off looking the other way when it comes to the CEO's paycheck or stockholders dividends.
However, in general, Tariffs make no economic sense, but governments are addicted to them. Too easy for other countries to retaliate. Then you have a spiral of tariffs, with the other countries jacking up the prices of things you really do want to buy from them. They are an artificial cost, and they virtually never have the desired effect. You certainly can't say they have prevented the loss of manufacturing jobs. They always fail. You learn this in Econ 101.
They simply feed bigger government, and none of that goes to creating more jobs, and none of it goes toward increasing local production in any meaningful way.
And hence the tariff. To overcome the difference in labor costs.
(Although labor is not nearly as large a component in the solar industry as it is in others, the process is largely hands off automated machinery).
But a good portion of the problem is also the US corporate tax rate. US corporate tax rate is about 40%, China is about 25%. Everybody likes to bitch about obscene corporate profits and how little they pay in taxes and then wonders why they ship jobs overseas.
Yes, there are lots of tax dodges in US law and almost no company pays the full 40%, but the same is true in China and elsewhere, so we don't even need to revisit that old saw, do we?
Simply dropping the Corporate Tax rate levels the playing field and actually favors US companies keeping high tech jobs local.
Obama has proposed cutting the corporate rate to 28%, and Mitt Romney proposes a 25% rate. So why are we still booking 40% and adding tariffs to compensate?
Going the DRM-free route is truly surprising and appreciated, but it's tainted by the eBooks all being more expensive than the paperback versions. That's a hard sell for a lot of people.:-/
I agree that going DRM free was a surprise, especially from JKR, who has long been very much adverse to ebook releases, often citing piracy as one of her objections. Apparently once you are filthy rich its not such an issue any more.
As for the Ebooks being more expensive, this too may fall, because until Apple got involved with ebooks, it didn't use to be that way. Books in Ebook format used to be 5 to 7 bucks, 9 bucks for a best seller. Then Apple enabled the publishers to adopt their so called Agency Model, and all the ebook prices jumped. Everybody else had no choice but to go along. The DOJ is currently looking into this, and in fact there are already indications that some publishers are quietly talking settlement.
Because of Apple's well placed friends, it took an EU Investigation to nudge the DOJ into action.
not just a permanent tilt which isn't particularly useful
Actually a permanent tilt to the noon day sun is THE SINGLE biggest and cheapest adjustment you can make to any solar array. Its far more than "particularly useful".
The average cops attitude reminds me of the Roman consul Gnaeus Pompey, who conquered Syria and Jerusalem without the senates prior approval. When some of his victims complained that his actions were unjust, he responded "Stop quoting the laws to us, we carry swords."
So, fast forward, substitute M16s for Swords....? Seriously, when and where has it EVER been different?
By the time State actors and armies are involved there exists no law. Until or unless a bigger army comes along, Bashar al-Assad can do as he wishes, just as Genghis Khan could.
But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.
Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.
The court ruling helps. but not enough. It was only the First Circuit. We went years with GPS tracking sans warrant being legal in one circuit and illegal in another before the SCOTUS stepped in.
Getting 20X the panels to get that extra 60% of the power doesn't make sense to me. Just put the suckers on the ground with a tilt-able stand.
Exactly. Or leave them on the roof with a tilt stand.
Left unsaid in TFA is if these towers rotate to face the sun. Without that, you gain little except their ability to stack panels vertically, housing more panels per square foot. (At more cost). If space were a problem this might make sense, but it doesn't make it cost effective, which TFA itself admits.
While the cost of a given amount of energy generated by such 3-D modules exceeds that of ordinary flat panels, the expense is partially balanced by a much higher energy output for a given footprint, as well as much more uniform power output over the course of a day, over the seasons of the year, and in the face of blockage from clouds or shadows.
This suggests to me that there is no ROI on this method, or at least none that could not be more cheaply matched by simply tilting existing solar arrays.
I don't discount the possibility that we are seeing another poorly written TFA, and that there is an eventual ROI. But the implication is that the generation of power early and power late in the day may never actually pay for the structures and maintenance needed to collect it, leaving you with zero net gain over a tilted array in northern latitudes.
To be honest, the reason I feel that you see less exploits for Win7 Phones over iOS or Android is it's newer and has a MUCH smaller user base. Security through Obscurity.
Ah, I see you've been drinking the Microsoft Koolaid.
There is no such thing as security through Obscurity.
Other OSs achieve better security by DESIGN, not by being obscure. Microsoft hides its source code, and always has. Yet for decades it was the least secure OS in the world. Virtually all flavors of 'Nix publish their source code openly, and yet they are the most secure.
Please just stop with this "Its hacked because its popular" nonsense.
Android has tons of trojans, while iOS has remote exploits (most of those iPhone jail breaking methods are based on remote root exploits).
Wrong on both counts.
IOS jailbreaks are based on LOCAL root exploits. You have to have it in hand to jailbreak it. There is no drive-by jailbreak available.
Android Trojans might be found in dodgy third party app sites, but are quickly squashed in the Android Market (now called Google Play after one of the dumbest re-names in memory). Each Android app specifically tells you what permissions (data access, phone functions) it wants to use before it installs.
(There are rumors that development is already underway to block apps from using certain permissions even if they do declare them, offering users a finer grained control.).
If you want to be safe, you install only from Itunes, Android Market, Amazon Market, and a couple of other well trusted app market places. There is never a need for a newbie to run off and install from some web site, or root their phone.
As for Windows Phone, who knows, because it simply is too small to attract any significant attention at this point. Given Microsoft's history of OS vulnerabilities you have to be a true believer to assume their new found religion of security is believable.
Not quite. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit ruling that the patents were valid and infringed, and remanded back for reconsideration based on the recent Prometheus v. Mayo case. Basically saying, "take another look." They did not however "overturn patents" nor did they "throw out human gene patents" as the headline states.
In typical fashion, the summary glosses over the technical procedure. Thanks for setting that straight.
Nevertheless, its pretty much over, because to get around Prometheus, the lawyers lower courts are going to have to do some fancy dancing, and they are unlikely to do this anytime soon. In the meantime Prometheus settles, and becomes the standard by which all of these bio/genome patents are litigated.
Like , these decisions tend to put a significant change in momentum into the legal system, and in the present case its long overdue.
The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle,
Wait, what? Where did you get 6 times? And where did the impactor get a mantle? That number is sheer conjecture, and the existence of a mantle makes so sense until you have an impactor large enough to have a differentiated body. That hasn't been proven.
Moon's core is different from earth's by our best guesses. But the surface accretion in the eons after any impact is going to accumulate the same combination of protoplanetary disk material and ejecta material.
We've barely scratches the surface of earth, let alone the moon. These isotope measurements are akin to determining the structure of a large building by examining a paint chip scraped off of each.
And using hind sight, doesn't ANY outcome appear to be the result of "fine tuning"? Isn't any such argument just another form of intelligent creation dogma?
The location of Theia's formation at 4 or L5 would be close enough to earth that the accretion would of the same material. Further if Theia were at L4 it would lead earth in the orbital path, 60 degrees ahead, and would tend to preferentially sweep the protoplanetary disk, before earth's mass rendered any advantage. Any differences in ratios would be small at the time of impact.
Bear in mind that anything at the the Lagrange points must necessarily be insignificantly small relative to the earth. As soon as it stops being so, the likelihood of it staying at the Lagrange point becomes nil. I remain unconvinced that a planet could form at L4 or L5 and become large enough such that any impact would eject a mass as large as the moon. Drift should occur long before it acquired enough mass. (Earths orbit is not circular, rather it is elliptical, and as such the Lagrange points are really unstable Lagrange "areas").
Disregarding my doubts, when a body formed at L4 or L5 does drift, and impact earth, that impact would scatter its content over the surface of the earth such that we would, after all these billions of years, be hard pressed to distinguish it from earth's original composition. Similarly, the moon would be composed of the same material sources, a combination of both Theia and Earth materials.
Any subtle differences in accretion would be completely masked by impact mixing.
However, the same could be said about any body impacting the earth. The likelihood of such a body remaining intact (bottling up any difference in isotopic ratios) is virtually nil, and both earth and moon are going to be covered with the same relative ratios in any method which postulates the moon being formed from ejecta from an earth impact.
At best this finding puts to rest the long discredited "captured moon" theory.
The cameras typically used (country wide, I have no specific knowledge of Chicago) can be set to trigger at virtually any speed on a permitted right turn on red. So they can set it to catch a one mile per hour rolling stop, and issue a ticket even when there is zero cross traffic.
They are focused on small areas, the intersection. So the only place they monitor speed is in the intersection, and the only speeders they will catch there are the ones trying to beat the short yellows that have been put in place to raise revenue. Going thru the intersection at 5 over to beat the light does not cause accidents, because cross traffic is already stopped, pedestrians are not permitted to be crossing at that time. Further the speeding can only occur when there is no traffic ahead, and the speeder will have to slow down as soon as they catch up to traffic.
In short, the only use case is to catch those trying to beat the short yellow.
This issue is starting to hit the main stream press in Chicago, and the mayor is currently in "no comment" mode over his relationship with Goldner. But Chicago being Chicago, this will probably be pushed through regardless.
Its already available in many cars. Those 4 little round circles, about the size of a US Nickle built into the front and rear bumpers of cars use radar for several different things, such as collision avoidance, adaptive cruise control, blind spot detection, etc.
Check out This Site for a visual on how this works.
Its widely implemented via many manufacturers in high-end cars, or as available options on mid range cars.
And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
Really? Pop two off the stack and ret to the calling routine seems fairly common to me. Lots of functions use two arguments and are called with near calls in various programming languages.
Given appropriate equipment and a person with a reasonable ear (mine aren't even that great and they suffice) and you can definitely tell the difference between 92KHz and 192Khz,
You can hide the Queen Mary in there, and big companies do it all the time. On a scale from ONE to Google you can hide two dozen of these little acquisitions and the revenue or loss that they may generate. These documents simply aren't broken down that fine. Apple hid the entire iPhone development project for three years. There is no requirement that detail line item projects be reported.
AOL is not germane. Nobody ever claimed that was a success. Everybody knew they were going to have a loss there before the ink was dry on the merger documents.
Slashdot Mirror
A zero tax rate would allow a huge advantage. After all, China has a 25% rate, and even Mexico has 30%.
On automated assembly and manufacturing where there is less hand work, the US could easily compete, and
foreign companies would be moving production to the US.
An economic case can be made for a zero corporate tax rate. After all, those profits go SOMEPLACE, and eventually
into someone's pocket, where they are taxed. Keeping the profits from flowing off-shore is a bit of a problem, but if the
larger portion of corporate spending was done domestically (physical plant, employment, materials, etc) you might
be better off looking the other way when it comes to the CEO's paycheck or stockholders dividends.
However, in general, Tariffs make no economic sense, but governments are addicted to them. Too easy for other countries to retaliate.
Then you have a spiral of tariffs, with the other countries jacking up the prices of things you really do want to buy
from them. They are an artificial cost, and they virtually never have the desired effect. You certainly can't say they have prevented
the loss of manufacturing jobs. They always fail.
You learn this in Econ 101.
They simply feed bigger government, and none of that goes to creating more jobs, and none of it goes toward
increasing local production in any meaningful way.
Incentives, not Tariffs.
And hence the tariff. To overcome the difference in labor costs.
(Although labor is not nearly as large a component in the solar industry as it is in others, the process is largely hands off automated machinery).
But a good portion of the problem is also the US corporate tax rate. US corporate tax rate is about 40%, China is about 25%. Everybody likes to bitch about obscene corporate profits and how little they pay in taxes and then wonders why they ship jobs overseas.
Yes, there are lots of tax dodges in US law and almost no company pays the full 40%, but the same is true in China and elsewhere, so we don't even need to revisit that old saw, do we?
Simply dropping the Corporate Tax rate levels the playing field and actually favors US companies keeping high tech jobs local.
Obama has proposed cutting the corporate rate to 28%, and Mitt Romney proposes a 25% rate. So why are we still booking 40% and adding tariffs to compensate?
Going the DRM-free route is truly surprising and appreciated, but it's tainted by the eBooks all being more expensive than the paperback versions. That's a hard sell for a lot of people. :-/
I agree that going DRM free was a surprise, especially from JKR, who has long been very much adverse to ebook releases, often citing piracy as one of her objections. Apparently once you are filthy rich its not such an issue any more.
As for the Ebooks being more expensive, this too may fall, because until Apple got involved with ebooks, it didn't use to be that way. Books in Ebook format used to be 5 to 7 bucks, 9 bucks for a best seller. Then Apple enabled the publishers to adopt their so called Agency Model, and all the ebook prices jumped. Everybody else had no choice but to go along. The DOJ is currently looking into this, and in fact there are already indications that some publishers are quietly talking settlement.
Because of Apple's well placed friends, it took an EU Investigation to nudge the DOJ into action.
not just a permanent tilt which isn't particularly useful
Actually a permanent tilt to the noon day sun is THE SINGLE biggest and cheapest adjustment you can make to any solar array. Its far more than "particularly useful".
The average cops attitude reminds me of the Roman consul Gnaeus Pompey, who conquered Syria and Jerusalem without the senates prior approval. When some of his victims complained that his actions were unjust, he responded "Stop quoting the laws to us, we carry swords."
So, fast forward, substitute M16s for Swords....?
Seriously, when and where has it EVER been different?
By the time State actors and armies are involved there exists no law. Until or unless a bigger army comes along, Bashar al-Assad can do as he wishes, just as Genghis Khan could.
But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.
Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.
The court ruling helps. but not enough. It was only the First Circuit. We went years with GPS tracking sans warrant being legal in one circuit and illegal in another before the SCOTUS stepped in.
Getting 20X the panels to get that extra 60% of the power doesn't make sense to me. Just put the suckers on the ground with a tilt-able stand.
Exactly.
Or leave them on the roof with a tilt stand.
Left unsaid in TFA is if these towers rotate to face the sun. Without that, you gain little except their ability to stack panels vertically, housing more panels per square foot. (At more cost). If space were a problem this might make sense, but it doesn't make it cost effective, which TFA itself admits.
Yeah, I read dud RTFA. It said:
While the cost of a given amount of energy generated by such 3-D modules exceeds that of ordinary flat panels, the expense is partially balanced by a much higher energy output for a given footprint, as well as much more uniform power output over the course of a day, over the seasons of the year, and in the face of blockage from clouds or shadows.
This suggests to me that there is no ROI on this method, or at least none that could not be more cheaply matched by simply tilting existing solar arrays.
I don't discount the possibility that we are seeing another poorly written TFA, and that there is an eventual ROI. But the implication is that the generation of power early and power late in the day may never actually pay for the structures and maintenance needed to collect it, leaving you with zero net gain over a tilted array in northern latitudes.
Maybe I wasn't around then, because I stole this slashdot ID from a dead guy found frozen in a snowbank somewhere who died before you were born?
To be honest, the reason I feel that you see less exploits for Win7 Phones over iOS or Android is it's newer and has a MUCH smaller user base. Security through Obscurity.
Ah, I see you've been drinking the Microsoft Koolaid.
There is no such thing as security through Obscurity.
Other OSs achieve better security by DESIGN, not by being obscure. Microsoft hides its source code, and always has. Yet for decades it was the least secure OS in the world. Virtually all flavors of 'Nix publish their source code openly, and yet they are the most secure.
Please just stop with this "Its hacked because its popular" nonsense.
Android has tons of trojans, while iOS has remote exploits (most of those iPhone jail breaking methods are based on remote root exploits).
Wrong on both counts.
IOS jailbreaks are based on LOCAL root exploits. You have to have it in hand to jailbreak it. There is no drive-by jailbreak available.
Android Trojans might be found in dodgy third party app sites, but are quickly squashed in the Android Market (now called Google Play after one of the dumbest re-names in memory). Each Android app specifically tells you what permissions (data access, phone functions) it wants to use before it installs.
(There are rumors that development is already underway to block apps from using certain permissions even if they do declare them, offering users a finer grained control.).
If you want to be safe, you install only from Itunes, Android Market, Amazon Market, and a couple of other well trusted app market places. There is never a need for a newbie to run off and install from some web site, or root their phone.
As for Windows Phone, who knows, because it simply is too small to attract any significant attention at this point. Given Microsoft's history of OS vulnerabilities you have to be a true believer to assume their new found religion of security is believable.
Not quite. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit ruling that the patents were valid and infringed, and remanded back for reconsideration based on the recent Prometheus v. Mayo case. Basically saying, "take another look." They did not however "overturn patents" nor did they "throw out human gene patents" as the headline states.
In typical fashion, the summary glosses over the technical procedure. Thanks for setting that straight.
Nevertheless, its pretty much over, because to get around Prometheus, the lawyers lower courts are going to have to do some fancy dancing, and they are unlikely to do this anytime soon. In the meantime Prometheus settles, and becomes the standard by which all of these bio/genome patents are litigated.
Like , these decisions tend to put a significant change in momentum into the legal system, and in the present case its long overdue.
Poor picture.
Try this one: http://tectrack.blogspot.com/2011/11/forget-micro-sim-nano-sim-will-be.html
or this one http://www.ixwebhosting.mobi/giesecke-devrient-launch-worlds-first-nano-sim-card-micro-sim-card-than-the-small-13/
Look at this picture: http://tectrack.blogspot.com/2011/11/forget-micro-sim-nano-sim-will-be.html
Nano sim is thinner and 12mm X 9mm.
Now tell me with a straight face that adding the difference between a Micro sim and a Nano Sim will make any significant difference in battery size.
The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle,
Wait, what? Where did you get 6 times? And where did the impactor get a mantle? That number is sheer conjecture, and the existence of a mantle makes so sense until you have an impactor large enough to have a differentiated body. That hasn't been proven.
Moon's core is different from earth's by our best guesses. But the surface accretion in the eons after any impact is going to accumulate the same combination of protoplanetary disk material and ejecta material.
We've barely scratches the surface of earth, let alone the moon. These isotope measurements are akin to determining the structure of a large building by examining a paint chip scraped off of each.
And using hind sight, doesn't ANY outcome appear to be the result of "fine tuning"? Isn't any such argument just another form of intelligent creation dogma?
Their assertion is highly suspect at best.
And that 40% magma would be where? On the surface of the moon waiting to be picked up by astronauts?
Several hundred billion years of both earth and moon sweeping the SAME disk in space would cause the surface of both to be largely the same.
Wake me when there are core samples from several hundred miles deep of both bodies. Until then, any isotope studies are studying accretion debris.
The location of Theia's formation at 4 or L5 would be close enough to earth that the accretion would of the same material. Further if Theia were at L4 it would lead earth in the orbital path, 60 degrees ahead, and would tend to preferentially sweep the protoplanetary disk, before earth's mass rendered any advantage. Any differences in ratios would be small at the time of impact.
Bear in mind that anything at the the Lagrange points must necessarily be insignificantly small relative to the earth. As soon as it stops being so, the likelihood of it staying at the Lagrange point becomes nil. I remain unconvinced that a planet could form at L4 or L5 and become large enough such that any impact would eject a mass as large as the moon. Drift should occur long before it acquired enough mass. (Earths orbit is not circular, rather it is elliptical, and as such the Lagrange points are really unstable Lagrange "areas").
Disregarding my doubts, when a body formed at L4 or L5 does drift, and impact earth, that impact would scatter its content over the surface of the earth such that we would, after all these billions of years, be hard pressed to distinguish it from earth's original composition. Similarly, the moon would be composed of the same material sources, a combination of both Theia and Earth materials.
Any subtle differences in accretion would be completely masked by impact mixing.
However, the same could be said about any body impacting the earth. The likelihood of such a body remaining intact (bottling up any difference in isotopic ratios) is virtually nil, and both earth and moon are going to be covered with the same relative ratios in any method which postulates the moon being formed from ejecta from an earth impact.
At best this finding puts to rest the long discredited "captured moon" theory.
The cameras typically used (country wide, I have no specific knowledge of Chicago) can be set to trigger at virtually any speed on a permitted right turn on red. So they can set it to catch a one mile per hour rolling stop, and issue a ticket even when there is zero cross traffic.
They are focused on small areas, the intersection. So the only place they monitor speed is in the intersection, and the only speeders they will catch there are the ones trying to beat the short yellows that have been put in place to raise revenue.
Going thru the intersection at 5 over to beat the light does not cause accidents, because cross traffic is already stopped, pedestrians are not permitted to be crossing at that time. Further the speeding can only occur when there is no traffic ahead, and the speeder will have to slow down as soon as they catch up to traffic.
In short, the only use case is to catch those trying to beat the short yellow.
This issue is starting to hit the main stream press in Chicago, and the mayor is currently in "no comment" mode over his relationship with Goldner. But Chicago being Chicago, this will probably be pushed through regardless.
Its already available in many cars. Those 4 little round circles, about the size of a US Nickle built into the front and rear bumpers of cars use radar for several different things, such as collision avoidance, adaptive cruise control, blind spot detection, etc.
Check out This Site for a visual on how this works.
Its widely implemented via many manufacturers in high-end cars, or as available options on mid range cars.
Because if it were Joe Random Programmer AMD would not have even listened to him?
And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
Really?
Pop two off the stack and ret to the calling routine seems fairly common to me. Lots of functions use two arguments and are called with near calls in various programming languages.
Given appropriate equipment and a person with a reasonable ear (mine aren't even that great and they suffice) and you can definitely tell the difference between 92KHz and 192Khz,
So you didn't read the fine article, I gather.
Did you run your ABX testing? No? Thought not.
Not if you don't know any better. ;-)
Seriously, its been so long since I've seen a live band I don't know what a drum is supposed to sound like.
At my age my ears are not so hot.
SEC filings? Really?
Have you read those?
You can hide the Queen Mary in there, and big companies do it all the time. On a scale from ONE to Google you can hide two dozen of these little acquisitions and the revenue or loss that they may generate. These documents simply aren't broken down that fine. Apple hid the entire iPhone development project for three years. There is no requirement that detail line item projects be reported.
AOL is not germane. Nobody ever claimed that was a success. Everybody knew they were going to have a loss there before the ink was dry on the merger documents.