If there is no corporate tax then a lot of money will stay within the corporation, to be spent on "corporate" perks. Did you think that the high-up executables pay for their private jets with their own money?
If you think that is the worse thing that google could do, then I'm glad I don't live in your glass house.
I provided a recent example that was discussed on slashdot. Where exactly did I say it was the worst thing they could do, or has done?
That change is so small, and considering the public that used google, a smart change.
Look at the big picture. Google have now demonstrated that they are able and willing to manipulate search results according to their agendas. Everybody complains about biased news outlets trying to manipulate public opinion and perception. And yet, when the largest search engine, run by an advertisement company (Google's latest financial filings show that over 95% of their revenues comes from advertising) does that, it is magically OK?
I find them not paying $10 billion in taxes to be a worse offense myself, but whatever.
You chose the worst possible example. As a publicly traded corporation, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to minimize the amount of taxes they pay using every legally possible way. The fact that US law allows such machinations is not Google's fault. If you have a problem with it, ask your Congress why do they fight tooth and nail against any attempt to close such loopholes.
At this point, I might be OK with strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.
Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
C++ has the problem that exceptions cannot be chained. Therefore dtors are not allowed to throw. Therefore, doing non-trivial work in dtors becomes a pain in the posterior. Which limits the usability of dtors.
And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
-- From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams.
maybe not, but some are certainly better than others, and who gets elected to congress DOES matter. even if a politician doesn't *precisely* share your views, they may agree on matters you care about most, such as internet freedom or immigration or taxes.
A politician may or may not agree with some of your views but they, as a rule, do not have your best interests in heart.
voting is worth everyone's time.
Making sure that you have good voting choices is worth everyone's time. Going through the motion to vote for what you consider to be "the lesser evil" is not.
You talk as if there is a way you could vote that would actually change anything. Even assuming that the system worked as intended, at most you'd get to choose one issue where you get to make a positive change. For the other issues things either stay the same, or you get ass-raped.
The real problem is that every generation complains that the previous one mucked things up and they will make it better once they get in power. Then they do get in power but "surprisingly" things do not get any better.
It is as if people stop caring about injustice once they are on the right side of it.
Is false advertisement legitimate? Is libel legitimate? Is fraud legitimate? Is perjury legitimate? Is publishing private data (say, the username/password to your banking site) legitimate?
Do not even think about stepping over the line because they may decide to make an example out of you. Hell, they might do it even if you have done nothing wrong.
Happens in the US as well. The scale is different (due to different circumstances) but the principle is the same.
Officially, we're not to be referred to as cattle.
So when did making a buck off me start to take precedence over everything in the Bill of Rights?
I believe that it was a gradual process. I am not a history scholar so I cannot tell you when it began but the bottom line is that we are at that point now.
No, I don't need irrefutable evidence...any evidence at all would do.
The only evidence that I can present is that nothing else has worked so far.
You are surprised that one man trying to convince people of things hasn't changed the world in a short amount of time.
Let my fix that for you:
I am disappointed that one man trying to convince people of things hasn't made a iota of a difference in two and a half decades.
I never said it would be easy. But if you study the history or violnet revolution, I believe you will find that 9 times out of 10 the cure is much, much worse than the disease. See: Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Congo, etc. etc. etc.
I did not say that violent revolutions are good. I did not advocate for one. I did say that (IMHO implied) it is the only thing that can bring measurable change to the system, for better or worse.
Recently, we've switched to democracy, which amazingly allows for non-violet revolution.
Not when your only "democratic" choice is whether to vote for Kang or for Kodos.
A real democracy, whether direct or representative, only works with an informed and active populace, that is concerned about its rights and the principles of good governance and is willing to suffer inconveniences to protect them.
Otherwise, you only get the illusion of democracy that serves only to stop you from violently revolting by providing a false hope.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is no corporate tax then a lot of money will stay within the corporation, to be spent on "corporate" perks.
Did you think that the high-up executables pay for their private jets with their own money?
Wow, just wow.
I am amazed by your eloquence.
If you think that is the worse thing that google could do, then I'm glad I don't live in your glass house.
I provided a recent example that was discussed on slashdot.
Where exactly did I say it was the worst thing they could do, or has done?
That change is so small, and considering the public that used google, a smart change.
Look at the big picture.
Google have now demonstrated that they are able and willing to manipulate search results according to their agendas.
Everybody complains about biased news outlets trying to manipulate public opinion and perception. And yet, when the largest search engine, run by an advertisement company (Google's latest financial filings show that over 95% of their revenues comes from advertising) does that, it is magically OK?
I find them not paying $10 billion in taxes to be a worse offense myself, but whatever.
You chose the worst possible example.
As a publicly traded corporation, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to minimize the amount of taxes they pay using every legally possible way.
The fact that US law allows such machinations is not Google's fault. If you have a problem with it, ask your Congress why do they fight tooth and nail against any attempt to close such loopholes.
Google is definitely getting too big and powerful.
It's good to show people that there are alternatives.
Have we already forgotten this?
The "authorities"? I thought the police department's motto was "to protect and to serve". They are not authorities.
True, they just protect and serve the authorities.
At this point, I might be OK with strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.
Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Why do FOSS developers waste their time porting their hard work to Windows, of all platforms?
Because they want to.
You don't have to vote Democrat OR Republican. The mechanism is there, are the American public smart enough to use it yet?
FTFY
You don't have to vote Democrat OR Republican. The mechanism is there, are the American public angry enough to use it yet?
I've looked at the alternatives, and they're far worse than the Democrats or Republicans.
No, they're not. They are just presented that way in the mainstream media (which is controlled by...)
C++ has the problem that exceptions cannot be chained.
Therefore dtors are not allowed to throw.
Therefore, doing non-trivial work in dtors becomes a pain in the posterior.
Which limits the usability of dtors.
And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
egamma secretly sodomizes kittens.
Go ahead, prove it false.
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
-- From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams.
Filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.
Therefore, we should first get rid of this free and open society.
I don't remember exactly where and when this decision was made, but most national governments are already in full-swing implementation mode.
The longer I live, the stronger my feeling that the world is just a giant McDonald's network.
And we are the cows.
maybe not, but some are certainly better than others, and who gets elected to congress DOES matter. even if a politician doesn't *precisely* share your views, they may agree on matters you care about most, such as internet freedom or immigration or taxes.
A politician may or may not agree with some of your views but they, as a rule, do not have your best interests in heart.
voting is worth everyone's time.
Making sure that you have good voting choices is worth everyone's time.
Going through the motion to vote for what you consider to be "the lesser evil" is not.
You talk as if there is a way you could vote that would actually change anything. Even assuming that the system worked as intended, at most you'd get to choose one issue where you get to make a positive change. For the other issues things either stay the same, or you get ass-raped.
The real problem is that every generation complains that the previous one mucked things up and they will make it better once they get in power.
Then they do get in power but "surprisingly" things do not get any better.
It is as if people stop caring about injustice once they are on the right side of it.
If your head is too far up your own ass to go cast a ballot for the politicians that best represent your interests [...]
Unless you feature in Forbes Magazine, no politician on the ballot represents your interests.
the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
In theory.
But we all know that the difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than it is in theory.
And this case is no exception.
There's the problem.
All speech is legitimate.
If only the world was so black and white.
Is false advertisement legitimate?
Is libel legitimate?
Is fraud legitimate?
Is perjury legitimate?
Is publishing private data (say, the username/password to your banking site) legitimate?
They are all subsets of "speech", you know.
Compliance through fear.
Do not even think about stepping over the line because they may decide to make an example out of you.
Hell, they might do it even if you have done nothing wrong.
Happens in the US as well. The scale is different (due to different circumstances) but the principle is the same.
$100 for 10 movies, or $10 for a VPN for 100 movies?
Which one?
That was not "buying local".
It is called "photo op".
Officially, we're not cattle.
Officially, we're not to be referred to as cattle.
So when did making a buck off me start to take precedence over everything in the Bill of Rights?
I believe that it was a gradual process. I am not a history scholar so I cannot tell you when it began but the bottom line is that we are at that point now.
The US has proven time and again, that justice is served only to those who own the system.
That the hell are you talking about?
The US has the finest justice system that money can buy!
No, I don't need irrefutable evidence...any evidence at all would do.
The only evidence that I can present is that nothing else has worked so far.
You are surprised that one man trying to convince people of things hasn't changed the world in a short amount of time.
Let my fix that for you:
I am disappointed that one man trying to convince people of things hasn't made a iota of a difference in two and a half decades.
I never said it would be easy. But if you study the history or violnet revolution, I believe you will find that 9 times out of 10 the cure is much, much worse than the disease. See: Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Congo, etc. etc. etc.
I did not say that violent revolutions are good.
I did not advocate for one.
I did say that (IMHO implied) it is the only thing that can bring measurable change to the system, for better or worse.
Recently, we've switched to democracy, which amazingly allows for non-violet revolution.
Not when your only "democratic" choice is whether to vote for Kang or for Kodos.
A real democracy, whether direct or representative, only works with an informed and active populace, that is concerned about its rights and the principles of good governance and is willing to suffer inconveniences to protect them.
Otherwise, you only get the illusion of democracy that serves only to stop you from violently revolting by providing a false hope.