Corporation tax comes *after* the business' expenses. Including everything you pay to employees.
Employees, individually, pay taxes on what they take home.
Corporation tax exists in part to prevent corporations from sitting on piles of money - it encourages them to pay money out to employees, where those employees will be taxed (at a higher rate than corporation tax), and can use the remainder for, you know, buying things.
> why is it such a good idea to hard-wire a car with network connectivity in the first place?
Because once you make a feature completely ubiquitous, to the point that "this feature not being present is not only an edge-case, but a definite failure", then possibilities multiply exponentially.
> This way you don't have the stupid planned obsolescence... in a friggin' *car*.
So.. are we just talking about a data connection anymore? Do you want your car's steering control to compete for CPU power with notifications that your farm is ready to be harvested? If we're talking about "just the data", then there's no reason to think that Bluetooth will outlast [the *multiple* protocols available to a phone for longer-range connections].
Your post also seems reliant on the notion that phone batteries are longer-lasting than car batteries, or that they will charge while in a car with a range comparable to the effective range of bluetooth, or that people will tether/dock their phones whenever they enter their cars, negating the mention of bluetooth
95.72% of Linus' rants can be boiled down to: "I trusted you, and this is what you do to me?! Prove to me. Prove to me now that this was a fluke, and maybe my trust in you will be restored."
This wasn't "ruling in favour of the obvious", this was making a ruling about which parts of "Happy Birthday" are copyrighted, based on the technicalities of the claim.
There has been no claim here that "Happy Birthday" could not possibly be under copyright, only that the words are not covered by the particular claim being disputed.
And if you had found out: "Despite selling its products to literally billions of people across the globe (and making billions of dollars by doing so), Coca-Cola does not actively fund any analysis or research into the long-term health effects of its products or their ingredients, or assist in any community efforts to deal with potential negative consequences of using its products", would you be somehow less-alarmed? Personally, I'd find that to be a whole lot worse. Like, "reckless disregard for the well-being of its customers" worse.
in Gimp, layers have boundaries. This doesn't seem to be a problem nearly as much as it used to be, but I have still run into it semi-recently. "I cropped your image because the part you were working on moved at some point in its history" is completely insane. Layer boundaries are visible by default, meaning your image starts with some square around its visible area, showing you... well, I don't actually know what it's intending to show you, as they seem to auto-resize for most operations these days.
The UI for the "resize" tool is so absurdly backwards that I suspect that it was implemented as a proof-of-concept for some pre-1.0 version and then never looked at again by a developer.
I'd say the same for the "text" tool, but I do recall a time when it was actually worse (it once didn't give any preview at all)
Want to change something's opacity from 0 to 100%? How about changing a brush size? Or maybe you want to select a colour from a range of hues? Each of these sliders has a completely different interface. Two of them share the ability to change their behaviour based on where (not indicated on the interface itself) you click / slide.
I'm not a graphic designer, so I rarely have need of GIMP or anything like it. When I do need it, I almost always want to: Paste a layer, resize it, probably copy it a few times, maybe change the opacity, maybe draw a circle around something, probably type in some text to explain what was circled. I don't need a lot from GIMP. The only things I interact with are the most basic of tools: move layers, resize layers, draw a squiggle, type some text. Even with these absolute basics, I encounter painful UI issues every time I load up GIMP.
I really enjoy graphic design, image manipulation, etc. But I would sooner install Windows and sign up for a £40/mo subscription to Photoshop than I would attempt to use GIMP for anything more complicated than I already use it for.
Just in case you were actually curious, that is what I find so intolerable. I can go into more detail, but I expect this summary is enough to give you an idea.
tl;dr: Try to do the most basic things I can think of wanting from an Image Manipulation Program; encounter UI which consistently prevents me from either seeing what I'm doing; never bothered trying to do anything less-basic because of it.
Why do stories about branding changes, without fail, call it a "logo change"? And usually coupled with complaints such as "What? They changed the font on the logo? I Bet someone made a lot of money for that genius move!"
"Branding" != "Logo". The logo is almost always *part of* a branding change, but it is almost never the *extent* of a branding change.
Branding includes all logos (not just the one which shows the parent company's name), colour schemes, phrasing ("tone of voice"), types of packaging, the way information is presented on and in packaging, the way physical stores are organised, the *existence* of physical stores, which products will be promoted, where product development will be focused in the future, etc.
A re-branding is usually part of a company restructure, or a major change in focus, after market forces (eg: a new competitor, a shift in technology, particularly bad sales, a looming end to exponential growth, etc) have made it clear that *something* needs to change, to ensure either continued growth, or in an attempt to prevent further losses.
But the big story everyone focuses on is always "the main corporate logo has changed. So-and-so consulting company is rumoured to have been paid $80,000,000,000 for this change"
As Google's blog puts it, this isn't a "logo change", this is a change to Google's design, how it presents its services, how it highlights what products it offers, etc.
I know that's what I base my critical data storage choices on - how fast a tangentially-related service's static front page loaded 15 years ago on dialup.
"under penalty of perjury" is enough to deter Superman. "under penalty of 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid" is potentially enough to attract lawyers on a no-win-no-pay basis, which is the only way these things are ever going to stop.
Technically correct. And for spherical humans in a vacuum, completely correct.
But:
- There are multiple factors which influence how much is burned. Food has an influence on energy levels and brain chemistry beyond "how many calories were in the food", for example.
- "Consuming food" is a fuzzy definition. "food entering your mouth" is not the same as "food which will be converted into energy for your body". In the U.S. at least (I don't know about elsewhere) the label of "calories" on a box of food, for example, is meant to compensate for this, giving an average based on a typical person eating a standard amount.
Notice that neither of these point attempt to refute the claim that a poor diet makes you fat. What I am refuting is that the concept of "poor diet makes you fat" can be usefully mapped to thermodynamics.
Biometric data is *NOT SECRET* and never has been. The idea isn't "nobody has access to your fingerprints", it's "if you control the device, and can monitor the person attempting to access the device, you can easily detect attempts to use someone else's data"
eg: Yes, your fingerprint reader can be defeated by the person holding a photocopy of someone else's hand. If you leave them alone with the device, they can also defeat it by pulling the back cover off, so that's not particularly an issue.
I don't like most of the DMCA in principle, but I expect I wouldn't even care about it, if it just had some clear built-in penalty for making a false claim (eg: 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid)
Once you have a unified address space, you'll pretty quickly realise that: 1) the definition of "unified address space" has moved on enough that you still don't have one, and 2) you still want to segment those address spaces for reasons other than performance and the physical limitations of volitility
The explanation of it all being a way to maximize production to prevent panic sure makes a lot more sense as a reason to get upset than the one Charlton Heston's character nonsensically blurts out
The robot will *always* have been vandalised. That is the only end condition. It is a social experiment, to see if the robot gets vandalised, which runs until it happens. The experiment can be viewed as: while !robot.IsVandalised() {
if robot.NeedsRepair() {
community.Repair(robot)
}// do nothing } community.ExpressOutrageAtHumanity()
This only proves "at least one person will vandalise a (reports indicate already-broken) robot". We already knew that.
The real problem wasn't "tying Google+ to everything"
The real problem was "tying the *name* Google+ to everything"
like they somehow thought that if they called 20 unrelated (and individually great) services "Google+", people would be tricked into they should use Service X just because they use Service Y.
Identity management for all google services? It would be insane not to have that. We'll call it "Google+"
A messaging platform for talking to friends and professionals alike? We'll call it "Google+"
A video conferencing app? Well, that's arguably part of messaging, which we're calling Google+, so it's also called Google+.
Want to share a photo? Me too. Google+ is great for that. No, no, not *that* Google+, the other Google+
Over time, each of these services have gotten their own name and branding and app and experience. But everyone still thinks "I hate Google+! It keeps asking me to join it every time I want to share a photo! I am not interested in a new Social Network!".. when really these tools have *always* been unrelated, but sharing a common name (though they probably all used the unified Google Login, which is called Google+, but you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to not want that)
Slashdot Mirror
Corporation tax comes *after* the business' expenses. Including everything you pay to employees.
Employees, individually, pay taxes on what they take home.
Corporation tax exists in part to prevent corporations from sitting on piles of money - it encourages them to pay money out to employees, where those employees will be taxed (at a higher rate than corporation tax), and can use the remainder for, you know, buying things.
> why is it such a good idea to hard-wire a car with network connectivity in the first place?
Because once you make a feature completely ubiquitous, to the point that "this feature not being present is not only an edge-case, but a definite failure", then possibilities multiply exponentially.
> This way you don't have the stupid planned obsolescence... in a friggin' *car*.
So.. are we just talking about a data connection anymore? Do you want your car's steering control to compete for CPU power with notifications that your farm is ready to be harvested? If we're talking about "just the data", then there's no reason to think that Bluetooth will outlast [the *multiple* protocols available to a phone for longer-range connections].
Your post also seems reliant on the notion that phone batteries are longer-lasting than car batteries, or that they will charge while in a car with a range comparable to the effective range of bluetooth, or that people will tether/dock their phones whenever they enter their cars, negating the mention of bluetooth
That's the problem with this story.
"Nobody uses this thing... I guess we should get rid of it completely. I guess people don't want to access their missed notifications"
I *knew* the thing existed, and I still couldn't get to it when I wanted it.
95.72% of Linus' rants can be boiled down to: "I trusted you, and this is what you do to me?! Prove to me. Prove to me now that this was a fluke, and maybe my trust in you will be restored."
Yes.
I mean, not nearly yet. It keeps getting closer. But not yet.
Soon, though.
Soon, I am going to have a very fun week.
This wasn't "ruling in favour of the obvious", this was making a ruling about which parts of "Happy Birthday" are copyrighted, based on the technicalities of the claim.
There has been no claim here that "Happy Birthday" could not possibly be under copyright, only that the words are not covered by the particular claim being disputed.
And if you had found out: "Despite selling its products to literally billions of people across the globe (and making billions of dollars by doing so), Coca-Cola does not actively fund any analysis or research into the long-term health effects of its products or their ingredients, or assist in any community efforts to deal with potential negative consequences of using its products", would you be somehow less-alarmed? Personally, I'd find that to be a whole lot worse. Like, "reckless disregard for the well-being of its customers" worse.
If you create a painting using stolen paintbrushes, the painting is still yours.
in Gimp, layers have boundaries. This doesn't seem to be a problem nearly as much as it used to be, but I have still run into it semi-recently. "I cropped your image because the part you were working on moved at some point in its history" is completely insane. Layer boundaries are visible by default, meaning your image starts with some square around its visible area, showing you... well, I don't actually know what it's intending to show you, as they seem to auto-resize for most operations these days.
The UI for the "resize" tool is so absurdly backwards that I suspect that it was implemented as a proof-of-concept for some pre-1.0 version and then never looked at again by a developer.
I'd say the same for the "text" tool, but I do recall a time when it was actually worse (it once didn't give any preview at all)
Want to change something's opacity from 0 to 100%? How about changing a brush size? Or maybe you want to select a colour from a range of hues? Each of these sliders has a completely different interface. Two of them share the ability to change their behaviour based on where (not indicated on the interface itself) you click / slide.
I'm not a graphic designer, so I rarely have need of GIMP or anything like it. When I do need it, I almost always want to: Paste a layer, resize it, probably copy it a few times, maybe change the opacity, maybe draw a circle around something, probably type in some text to explain what was circled. I don't need a lot from GIMP. The only things I interact with are the most basic of tools: move layers, resize layers, draw a squiggle, type some text. Even with these absolute basics, I encounter painful UI issues every time I load up GIMP.
I really enjoy graphic design, image manipulation, etc. But I would sooner install Windows and sign up for a £40/mo subscription to Photoshop than I would attempt to use GIMP for anything more complicated than I already use it for.
Just in case you were actually curious, that is what I find so intolerable. I can go into more detail, but I expect this summary is enough to give you an idea.
tl;dr: Try to do the most basic things I can think of wanting from an Image Manipulation Program; encounter UI which consistently prevents me from either seeing what I'm doing; never bothered trying to do anything less-basic because of it.
Why do stories about branding changes, without fail, call it a "logo change"? And usually coupled with complaints such as "What? They changed the font on the logo? I Bet someone made a lot of money for that genius move!"
"Branding" != "Logo". The logo is almost always *part of* a branding change, but it is almost never the *extent* of a branding change.
Branding includes all logos (not just the one which shows the parent company's name), colour schemes, phrasing ("tone of voice"), types of packaging, the way information is presented on and in packaging, the way physical stores are organised, the *existence* of physical stores, which products will be promoted, where product development will be focused in the future, etc.
A re-branding is usually part of a company restructure, or a major change in focus, after market forces (eg: a new competitor, a shift in technology, particularly bad sales, a looming end to exponential growth, etc) have made it clear that *something* needs to change, to ensure either continued growth, or in an attempt to prevent further losses.
But the big story everyone focuses on is always "the main corporate logo has changed. So-and-so consulting company is rumoured to have been paid $80,000,000,000 for this change"
As Google's blog puts it, this isn't a "logo change", this is a change to Google's design, how it presents its services, how it highlights what products it offers, etc.
Why? Just ban prisoners.
I know that's what I base my critical data storage choices on - how fast a tangentially-related service's static front page loaded 15 years ago on dialup.
"under penalty of perjury" is enough to deter Superman. "under penalty of 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid" is potentially enough to attract lawyers on a no-win-no-pay basis, which is the only way these things are ever going to stop.
Technically correct. And for spherical humans in a vacuum, completely correct.
But:
- There are multiple factors which influence how much is burned. Food has an influence on energy levels and brain chemistry beyond "how many calories were in the food", for example.
- "Consuming food" is a fuzzy definition. "food entering your mouth" is not the same as "food which will be converted into energy for your body". In the U.S. at least (I don't know about elsewhere) the label of "calories" on a box of food, for example, is meant to compensate for this, giving an average based on a typical person eating a standard amount.
Notice that neither of these point attempt to refute the claim that a poor diet makes you fat. What I am refuting is that the concept of "poor diet makes you fat" can be usefully mapped to thermodynamics.
Isn't the classification of "diet drink" completely unregulated? I would be very surprised if "diet drinks" helped people lose weight at all.
Biometric data is *NOT SECRET* and never has been. The idea isn't "nobody has access to your fingerprints", it's "if you control the device, and can monitor the person attempting to access the device, you can easily detect attempts to use someone else's data"
eg: Yes, your fingerprint reader can be defeated by the person holding a photocopy of someone else's hand. If you leave them alone with the device, they can also defeat it by pulling the back cover off, so that's not particularly an issue.
I don't like most of the DMCA in principle, but I expect I wouldn't even care about it, if it just had some clear built-in penalty for making a false claim (eg: 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid)
Almost all popular social media these days label a button which has the effect of "I think more people should see this" as "I like / approve of this"
So of course it makes sense that people would start treating "I think more people should see this" as a synonym for general endorsement.
On the other hand, there's that word "material", and speech is never material. That's the *ONLY* fucking point.
Once you have a unified address space, you'll pretty quickly realise that: 1) the definition of "unified address space" has moved on enough that you still don't have one, and 2) you still want to segment those address spaces for reasons other than performance and the physical limitations of volitility
And this is the real winner. This is finally becoming feasible.
Not practical, but at least feasible.
The explanation of it all being a way to maximize production to prevent panic sure makes a lot more sense as a reason to get upset than the one Charlton Heston's character nonsensically blurts out
I hear you. Personally, I'm trying to learn go.
The robot will *always* have been vandalised. That is the only end condition. It is a social experiment, to see if the robot gets vandalised, which runs until it happens. The experiment can be viewed as:
// do nothing
while !robot.IsVandalised() {
if robot.NeedsRepair() {
community.Repair(robot)
}
}
community.ExpressOutrageAtHumanity()
This only proves "at least one person will vandalise a (reports indicate already-broken) robot". We already knew that.
The real problem wasn't "tying Google+ to everything"
The real problem was "tying the *name* Google+ to everything"
like they somehow thought that if they called 20 unrelated (and individually great) services "Google+", people would be tricked into they should use Service X just because they use Service Y.
Identity management for all google services? It would be insane not to have that. We'll call it "Google+"
A messaging platform for talking to friends and professionals alike? We'll call it "Google+"
A video conferencing app? Well, that's arguably part of messaging, which we're calling Google+, so it's also called Google+.
Want to share a photo? Me too. Google+ is great for that. No, no, not *that* Google+, the other Google+
Over time, each of these services have gotten their own name and branding and app and experience. But everyone still thinks "I hate Google+! It keeps asking me to join it every time I want to share a photo! I am not interested in a new Social Network!" .. when really these tools have *always* been unrelated, but sharing a common name (though they probably all used the unified Google Login, which is called Google+, but you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to not want that)