I imagine that, because of the false positive rates of using a dog for random searches, they already have cause to search you, your house or luggage for porn. So, bring in the dog. It's going to find a sh*t-load of innocent USB drives, SD cards and other assorted memory devices in my house. None of which contain contraband in my case. But it's going to find all (most?) of them. And then they'll check them and find out that all I have is vacation pictures and bootable Linux images. At the neighborhood perv's house, they'll likely find his kiddie porn stash.
Sure, one could claim that the cops planted the USB stick on you. And in some countries, if they "don't like your face" that's a possibility. But then they wouldn't need a dog to "find" it either. Here, they would already have traced your porn downloads from the TOR exit node. And finding that USB stick in your mason jar just undermines your possible defense that someone parked in front of your house and used your open WiFi.
The United States is a big one. As long as you pay taxes here (which can be very low or non-existent), the USA is one of the biggest tax shelters in the world.
At this time, it appears that the Finnish test won't differ much from current workers comp/assistance programs. The people participating in the initial program are those who have already qualified for unemployment. It just seeks to ask the question: What does handing out cash do to help workers through the unemployment hump and how well do they manage cash disbursements rather than restricted aid programs.
This isn't UBI yet according to it's proponents definition. True UBI is where you walk in, state that you are not earning anything (for whatever reason) and the gov't cuts you a check*. When we can observe the behavior of this group of people, we will have a better idea what we are buying into.
*Actually, some forms of UBI propose just cutting everyone a check, no questions asked.
... isn't universal. It's being given to people currently receiving some form of assistance and in place of that assistance. It's a worthwhile test, because it will show whether people can better budget a cash disbursement than live within the allocation rules of traditional aid plans.
No need to scare them away. After 9/11 nobody expects a hijacking to be a flight to Havana and an inconvenient delay. Passengers will kill the next terrorists before they can get into the cockpit or light their underpants on fire.
... has designed a device that will automatically sync data without authenticating the peer first? I mean other than the ones that were leaned on by the NSA to make surveillance by law enforcement easy.
This. We need to understand what will fill that ecological niche before we create a vacancy. Which other genera will move in, whether they will be a suitable prey for the predators and what they prey on other than us.
My dog will not be happy if we replace human-biting bugs with canine-biters.
Apple evaded taxes by declaring them in an imaginary company that was not based in any country on earth.
Of course you have the corporate parents articles of incorporation in front of you to back this statement up. Or are you just confusing the non existence of a fixed location with no requirement to declare one. Because that's the way many countries tax and incorporation laws are set up. There is no requirement to identify the beneficial owner of a company. And that would of course include its location.
This is true. Newspapers make their money from advertising. But the old 'printed on dead trees' newspapers didn't know who was reading their ads. Until the customer called or came in to the business and bought a product.
Web-based publication has given advertisers far more power in transactions than they ever had with printed publications. Not the businesses buying the ads, the advertisers. They have the power to dynamically direct to potential customers in order to maximize their profits, not those of the vendors they are supposedly doing business with. And, as an ad-buying business, you can't go down to the 7-11, grab a paper and see how well or poorly your ad has been placed. It will be different for every viewer.
Right. It's a three-way game. Apple will bring back 'a few billion'. Which, if taxed at 10 or 20% (nobody with a competent accountant pays the full marginal US rate of 35%), that will cost them a few hundred million. Small potatoes to have the US Treasury arm-twist the EU to BTFO. The USA would like to have Apple repatriate their offshore cash. Not just for the taxes, but to improve the odds that if Apple chooses to make investments, they will make them here. The EU might have shot themselves in the foot, big time, by going after Apple. Because if laws and regulations over there are subservient to "We needs the money!" thinking, that's not a place I'd like to risk expanding my business. And I suspect Apple will think the same.
every pound, euro or dollar in tax that Apple "avoids", well that's a pound, euro or dollar that we have to find.
One can legally "avoid" taxes (evasion is another issue, but not in the current case involving Apple). And the idea that "we" (whoever "we" is) have to have that money is faulty logic. We have to live within our means. And if we drop to the level of manipulating laws or regulations to get money that isn't legally owed, the whole rule of law system we live under falls apart pretty quickly.
Ireland disagrees with you; their claim is that the law wasn't broken.
But we keep jumping back and forth between Irish law not being in compliance with EU treaty and Apple breaking a law. The Irish say that Apple didn't and their regulators and courts are sovereign in this case. If the Irish tax code is judged to be out of compliance with EU treaties, then that's an issue between Ireland and the EU.
When our federal government implemented a national 55 MPH speed limit, some states resisted the change. The only thing the feds could do was to withhold federal funds from states. There was no way they could force the states to issue speeding tickets for 70 in a 55 zone when the states maintained the higher speed limit.
the EU requesting one of its members not to break the treaty they signed?
How did they break it? The claim of the EU regulator is that Ireland gave Apple a special subsidy. In reality, this provision of their tax code is available to ANY company doing business in Ireland. And has been for years. Microsoft has taken advantage of it (my next door neighbor works for the R&D division involved in this), as have a number of drug companies. Apple has just been more aggressive than most and as a result, profited more from it.
have a very malignant and malformed view of reality.
I have corporate tax attorneys in my family who are very familiar with this loophole.
Just why are you so vitriolic towards the EU
Because I'm in favor of the rule of law rather than a kleptocracy that goes after someone just because they realized a bigger gain.
Here's the thing: IF it can be shown in the appropriate court that Ireland broke some treaty by implementing tax code the way that they did, Apple broke no laws. They complied fully with Irish regulations, according to Cook. So, until the EU can demonstrate that laws have been broken, Apple should owe zero. And even then, if it turns out that the Irish government violated a treaty, unless Apple can be shown to have persuaded them to do so, they (Apple) owe zero. Aside from that, the beef that the EU regulator has is with Ireland, not Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
un-uninstallable malware
There is actually a good tutorial on how to uninstall MaAfee AV software.
But wouldn't there be an electrocution risk with any EV or hybrid?
wooden horses
metal detectors
I'm quite certain the TSA people would miss them. Nope, no metal here.
bringing back the draft
We've got your Universal Basic Income right here, private!
USB drives are illegal in your country?
I imagine that, because of the false positive rates of using a dog for random searches, they already have cause to search you, your house or luggage for porn. So, bring in the dog. It's going to find a sh*t-load of innocent USB drives, SD cards and other assorted memory devices in my house. None of which contain contraband in my case. But it's going to find all (most?) of them. And then they'll check them and find out that all I have is vacation pictures and bootable Linux images. At the neighborhood perv's house, they'll likely find his kiddie porn stash.
Sure, one could claim that the cops planted the USB stick on you. And in some countries, if they "don't like your face" that's a possibility. But then they wouldn't need a dog to "find" it either. Here, they would already have traced your porn downloads from the TOR exit node. And finding that USB stick in your mason jar just undermines your possible defense that someone parked in front of your house and used your open WiFi.
Couldn't get this out of my mind.
Ireland, for one.
The United States is a big one. As long as you pay taxes here (which can be very low or non-existent), the USA is one of the biggest tax shelters in the world.
At this time, it appears that the Finnish test won't differ much from current workers comp/assistance programs. The people participating in the initial program are those who have already qualified for unemployment. It just seeks to ask the question: What does handing out cash do to help workers through the unemployment hump and how well do they manage cash disbursements rather than restricted aid programs.
This isn't UBI yet according to it's proponents definition. True UBI is where you walk in, state that you are not earning anything (for whatever reason) and the gov't cuts you a check*. When we can observe the behavior of this group of people, we will have a better idea what we are buying into.
*Actually, some forms of UBI propose just cutting everyone a check, no questions asked.
When your name is published and your friends and neighbors realize you actually pay for online porn.
Carlos Danger is a real name?
No need to scare them away. After 9/11 nobody expects a hijacking to be a flight to Havana and an inconvenient delay. Passengers will kill the next terrorists before they can get into the cockpit or light their underpants on fire.
This. We need to understand what will fill that ecological niche before we create a vacancy. Which other genera will move in, whether they will be a suitable prey for the predators and what they prey on other than us.
My dog will not be happy if we replace human-biting bugs with canine-biters.
Apple evaded taxes by declaring them in an imaginary company that was not based in any country on earth.
Of course you have the corporate parents articles of incorporation in front of you to back this statement up. Or are you just confusing the non existence of a fixed location with no requirement to declare one. Because that's the way many countries tax and incorporation laws are set up. There is no requirement to identify the beneficial owner of a company. And that would of course include its location.
This is true. Newspapers make their money from advertising. But the old 'printed on dead trees' newspapers didn't know who was reading their ads. Until the customer called or came in to the business and bought a product.
Web-based publication has given advertisers far more power in transactions than they ever had with printed publications. Not the businesses buying the ads, the advertisers. They have the power to dynamically direct to potential customers in order to maximize their profits, not those of the vendors they are supposedly doing business with. And, as an ad-buying business, you can't go down to the 7-11, grab a paper and see how well or poorly your ad has been placed. It will be different for every viewer.
Right. It's a three-way game. Apple will bring back 'a few billion'. Which, if taxed at 10 or 20% (nobody with a competent accountant pays the full marginal US rate of 35%), that will cost them a few hundred million. Small potatoes to have the US Treasury arm-twist the EU to BTFO. The USA would like to have Apple repatriate their offshore cash. Not just for the taxes, but to improve the odds that if Apple chooses to make investments, they will make them here. The EU might have shot themselves in the foot, big time, by going after Apple. Because if laws and regulations over there are subservient to "We needs the money!" thinking, that's not a place I'd like to risk expanding my business. And I suspect Apple will think the same.
every pound, euro or dollar in tax that Apple "avoids", well that's a pound, euro or dollar that we have to find.
One can legally "avoid" taxes (evasion is another issue, but not in the current case involving Apple). And the idea that "we" (whoever "we" is) have to have that money is faulty logic. We have to live within our means. And if we drop to the level of manipulating laws or regulations to get money that isn't legally owed, the whole rule of law system we live under falls apart pretty quickly.
upon coming back to earth it will have to re-fill
Weight it in space (measure it's mass, to be precise).
This message has been brought to you by DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).
Why advertise that which your product shares with your competition? You emphasize it's advantages. Simple marketing.
So, there IS a God. And He is just.
Ireland disagrees with you; their claim is that the law wasn't broken.
But we keep jumping back and forth between Irish law not being in compliance with EU treaty and Apple breaking a law. The Irish say that Apple didn't and their regulators and courts are sovereign in this case. If the Irish tax code is judged to be out of compliance with EU treaties, then that's an issue between Ireland and the EU.
When our federal government implemented a national 55 MPH speed limit, some states resisted the change. The only thing the feds could do was to withhold federal funds from states. There was no way they could force the states to issue speeding tickets for 70 in a 55 zone when the states maintained the higher speed limit.
the EU requesting one of its members not to break the treaty they signed?
How did they break it? The claim of the EU regulator is that Ireland gave Apple a special subsidy. In reality, this provision of their tax code is available to ANY company doing business in Ireland. And has been for years. Microsoft has taken advantage of it (my next door neighbor works for the R&D division involved in this), as have a number of drug companies. Apple has just been more aggressive than most and as a result, profited more from it.
have a very malignant and malformed view of reality.
I have corporate tax attorneys in my family who are very familiar with this loophole.
Just why are you so vitriolic towards the EU
Because I'm in favor of the rule of law rather than a kleptocracy that goes after someone just because they realized a bigger gain.
Here's the thing: IF it can be shown in the appropriate court that Ireland broke some treaty by implementing tax code the way that they did, Apple broke no laws. They complied fully with Irish regulations, according to Cook. So, until the EU can demonstrate that laws have been broken, Apple should owe zero. And even then, if it turns out that the Irish government violated a treaty, unless Apple can be shown to have persuaded them to do so, they (Apple) owe zero. Aside from that, the beef that the EU regulator has is with Ireland, not Apple.
I can't click anything! I read my e-mail with elm.
Just a TV broadcast of Hitler opening the 1936 Olympic Games.