Received a stolen motorcycle, probably suggests the receiving was arranged on the internet.
The court documents state that he only knew the seller as Skye (note the odd spelling, something you wouldn't know unless communication was in writing).
The only documents you casually read were the Appeal, not the original court documents.
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda"
They avoided US taxes. Read the article.
"earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas" is not crap, its the central facts of the case.
Voting machines didn't do this. You said yourself you counted these votes and they were there, so what ever means of voting was used, open source, closed source, paper ballot was not the problem.
Who ever reported the results to the state may have done this, or the state officials themselves, or maybe commissioner, or maybe it was you for all we know.
Did the County publish their totals? Did the County challenge the state totals?
Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.
So what's your beef?
That was my entire point...it shouldn't be legal, and when a company does this, laws should have been violated.
Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.
Ok? Sound reasonable so far?
Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.
Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?
You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?
You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?
There was a time when it was legal to deny serving or employing someone due to their race. Did that make it OK? Sorry for the strawman, but come on...just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right (and vice versa, naturally.
Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.
Ok? Sound reasonable so far?
Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.
Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?
You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?
You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?
Perhaps someone who knows how to read and follow the links to the actual story. Google did noting wrong. That money was all earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas.
Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".
What they did was perfectly legal. Why don't you stop whining on slashdot and earn some overseas income and move it from one of your overseas subsidiaries to your subsidiary in a tax free country.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, that would entail actual WORK.
You cast a vote, which is recorded electronically. The machine prints 2 papers with a random ID with your vote. One paper you keep, one is put in a box. You can then go to a web site that has all the votes listed, and search for your ID code to verify that the vote alongside it is valid.
You never specified the purpose of the one put into the box.
There is a reluctance to provide a receipt for a vote that allows access to the actual things/people voted for.
You would never have such a thing in a paper ballot.
The reasons is vote buying. Give your corrupt union boss proof that you voted for a certain slate and you get your 100 bucks and be on your way.
But they are less willing to pay you if they can't be sure how you voted.
Pirating stops when the US agrees to let China steal reproduce and sell any/all IP at will. Then the US government can concentrate on rooting out US music downloaders.
No, actually I don't ignore that, and further I agree with what you said 100%. Its all part of my "Close Election" theory.
Not only will vote tampering only work where the elections is close, but its also only the close elections that will get detailed scrutiny. That may be another reason that there is so little vote tampering ever discovered, suspected, and proven.
But again, that is not germane to the question at hand, because you need a really REALLY close election to pull off that kind of tom foolery.
Even manual counting with 5 sets of eyes on every ballot would not protect against this kind of corruption in a tight election.
Even if you could link ballots to voters (and were willing to suffer the inevitable intimidation and reprisals and vote buying of that practice), there is no way to assure the ballots found in the trunk are not tied to people who ALSO have other ballots tied to them, perhaps in different precincts, or different counties.
Close elections are a fundamental problem not solvable by technology, and for the most part, in the grand scheme of things, if society is unable to clearly choose between A and B there is probably no significant difference anyway, and you end up with a tempest in a tea pot over an emotional issue.
Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available?...there's lots of money and power behind closed source, which leads to corruption and back-room deals. QED.
And so far, no believable evidence that any errors actually changed the outcome of any election other than in those cases where it was so close that even human error could tip the balance. That's why mandatory recount rules kick in, in most states when races are very tight.
At least with the paper ballot reader systems you have the actual documents to count, and could count them on by hand or by an Open Source device after an election to prove or disprove any claims of errors.
But until that happens, even on a small scale, and demonstrates that the closed source systems delivered the wrong result there is just no motivation to do anything.
Of course the totally electronic voting systems, with NO physical record remains pretty much un-audit-able.
You are exactly correct, the two-bill setup is what I have and it works fine.
Business internet, and Residential TV+Phone. Since its a home office setup, I have no paying customers viewing my TV so there is no licensing conflict.
Its actually all on a single drop, split at the demarc before it hits any comcast box.
My static IP allows me to open a couple ports for my clients without comcast security getting all over my case.
Opting out of domain helper is as simple as changing your DNS servers in your router. Mine point to a OpenDNS (paid), and allow me to block a lot of advertising popups and under-lines.
Google also supplies free DNS servers (8.8.8.8 ).
To do this, I just bridged my router (The comcast business service box), they even told me how to do this. Then I use my own linux box to handle routing. But you can also set up your own dns sources using their box if you want.
The Business services bunch are a whole lot easier to deal with than the home services people.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you actually HAD foreign income and foreign subsidiaries, why would an audit scare you?
If you don't have foreign earnings of course, trying this will get you in trouble.
So you think it is perfectly okay to shift revenue earned in one country to another country to avoid taxes?
As long as it is done legally, yes.
That's the perfect definition of "okay".
Would you have some other rules you would like to apply, and are you willing to accept the rules I dream up in return?
We have laws precisely to reign in people like you.
It would also be useful to know where this took place. NYC? Rural Nebraska?
Follow the link to the article.
Oh, what was I thinking, this is slashdot.
Received a stolen motorcycle, probably suggests the receiving was arranged on the internet.
The court documents state that he only knew the seller as Skye (note the odd spelling, something you wouldn't know unless communication was in writing).
The only documents you casually read were the Appeal, not the original court documents.
The kid has a record as long as your arm.
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda"
They avoided US taxes. Read the article.
"earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas" is not crap, its the central facts of the case.
Voting machines didn't do this.
You said yourself you counted these votes and they were there, so what ever means of voting was used, open source, closed source, paper ballot was not the problem.
Who ever reported the results to the state may have done this, or the state officials themselves, or maybe commissioner, or maybe it was you for all we know.
Did the County publish their totals?
Did the County challenge the state totals?
And corporate status is available to anyone.
Oh, and foreign subsidiaries are available to anyone willing to make the investment and do the work.
So again, I just don't see the problem here.
Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.
So what's your beef?
That was my entire point...it shouldn't be legal, and when a company does this, laws should have been violated.
Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.
Ok? Sound reasonable so far?
Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.
Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?
You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?
You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?
Any bells going off yet?
What they did was perfectly legal.
There was a time when it was legal to deny serving or employing someone due to their race. Did that make it OK? Sorry for the strawman, but come on...just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right (and vice versa, naturally.
Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.
Ok? Sound reasonable so far?
Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.
Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?
You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?
You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?
Any bells going off yet?
who in the hell marked the parent post "troll"
Perhaps someone who knows how to read and follow the links to the actual story. Google did noting wrong. That money was all earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas.
Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.
So what's your beef?
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".
What they did was perfectly legal. Why don't you stop whining on slashdot and earn some overseas income and move it from one of your overseas subsidiaries to your subsidiary in a tax free country.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, that would entail actual WORK.
I believe the US does not charge tax on income you earn over seas and never bring home. Which is why the Google "loophole" works.
They keep their overseas earnings overseas to the greatest extent possible.
If the US did not tax earnings brought into the US and spent here all this money would come on shore and be spent here.
You cast a vote, which is recorded electronically. The machine prints 2 papers with a random ID with your vote. One paper you keep, one is put in a box. You can then go to a web site that has all the votes listed, and search for your ID code to verify that the vote alongside it is valid.
You never specified the purpose of the one put into the box.
There is a reluctance to provide a receipt for a vote that allows access to the actual things/people voted for.
You would never have such a thing in a paper ballot.
The reasons is vote buying. Give your corrupt union boss proof that you voted for a certain slate and you get your 100 bucks and be on your way.
But they are less willing to pay you if they can't be sure how you voted.
Ten votes go missing?
How could you possibly be sure ten were missing? Did you have positive knowledge of the vote before hand?
Bring your union boss your pin and he will pay you 50 bucks on the spot if you voted for the correct people.
Congrats. You just commercialized voting.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Pirating stops when the US agrees to let China steal reproduce and sell any/all IP at will. Then the US government can concentrate on rooting out US music downloaders.
No, actually I don't ignore that, and further I agree with what you said 100%. Its all part of my "Close Election" theory.
Not only will vote tampering only work where the elections is close, but its also only the close elections that will get detailed scrutiny. That may be another reason that there is so little vote tampering ever discovered, suspected, and proven.
Nobody recounts a landslide.
I suggest you overstate your case. Its not like you can log into a voting machine on the internet in every precinct.
I'm sorry, but you can not quote Wikipedia on any political issue. Just don't go there. You should know this by now.
But again, that is not germane to the question at hand, because you need a really REALLY close election to pull off that kind of tom foolery.
Even manual counting with 5 sets of eyes on every ballot would not protect against this kind of corruption in a tight election.
Even if you could link ballots to voters (and were willing to suffer the inevitable intimidation and reprisals and vote buying of that practice), there is no way to assure the ballots found in the trunk are not tied to people who ALSO have other ballots tied to them, perhaps in different precincts, or different counties.
Close elections are a fundamental problem not solvable by technology, and for the most part, in the grand scheme of things, if society is unable to clearly choose between A and B there is probably no significant difference anyway, and you end up with a tempest in a tea pot over an emotional issue.
Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available? ...there's lots of money and power behind closed source, which leads to corruption and back-room deals. QED.
And so far, no believable evidence that any errors actually changed the outcome of any election other than in those cases where it was so close that even human error could tip the balance. That's why mandatory recount rules kick in, in most states when races are very tight.
At least with the paper ballot reader systems you have the actual documents to count, and could count them on by hand or by an Open Source device after an election to prove or disprove any claims of errors.
But until that happens, even on a small scale, and demonstrates that the closed source systems delivered the wrong result there is just no motivation to do anything.
Of course the totally electronic voting systems, with NO physical record remains pretty much un-audit-able.
judging by how well spam moguls and botnet kings are doing, he would be better of in Russia.
Oh, I'm pretty sure he would be welcomed with Open Arms in the United States.
You are exactly correct, the two-bill setup is what I have and it works fine.
Business internet, and Residential TV+Phone. Since its a home office setup, I have no paying customers viewing my TV so there is no licensing conflict.
Its actually all on a single drop, split at the demarc before it hits any comcast box.
My static IP allows me to open a couple ports for my clients without comcast security getting all over my case.
Opting out of domain helper is as simple as changing your DNS servers in your router. Mine point to a OpenDNS (paid), and allow me to block a lot of advertising popups and under-lines.
Google also supplies free DNS servers (8.8.8.8 ).
To do this, I just bridged my router (The comcast business service box), they even told me how to do this. Then I use my own linux box to handle routing. But you can also set up your own dns sources using their box if you want.
The Business services bunch are a whole lot easier to deal with than the home services people.
Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.
Just because the only tool you know how to use is a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.