Unlike Tesla, could have been profitable years and years ago, but chose to plow money into expanding. They could cut all that expansion money and be instantly profitable.
Amazon also benefited from the government subsidizing it by not having it charge sales tax for so many years.
Now that it's on a more even playing field with other stores, it will be interesting to watch.
I'm glad Finland has no other problems for the police to worry about.
Pretty much. Other than "18 year-old drunken Finnish youth molesting a reindeer" there really isn't much crime in Finland. What there is can be chalked up to the fact that for 7 months of the year, there's not much to do but drink.
Finland isn't even in the top 100 developed countries in terms of crime rates. Clearly, they're not trying hard enough.
I don't know much about the US legal system so I'm assuming that as you're saying the DoJ ignored Apple's violations that federal judges aren't part of that organisation.
It wasn't so much that they weren't prosecuted, as when they were found guilty, they weren't punished. It wasn't even a slap on the wrist. There was a finding a guilt and then *poof!* it all went away.
Since the DOJ and the US attorneys have great latitude in recommending fines, I can only assume some calls were made and then a decision to look the other way.
You still haven't said what anti trust violations Apple is guilty of.
Well, these are just some of the ones they've been found guilty of, which you can read about in the judge's opinion when he found them guilty (you could have googled it yourself, you know):
Among them, the right to peacably assemble. Humans don't lose their rights because they acting as a group towards a common goal.
Yes, they have rights as individuals. They don't lose those rights when they aggregate.
However, I don't see how you can argue that being in a group confers any additional rights on them.
Humans don't lose their human rights. They are inalienable. A corporation can lose its charter for not following statute. And FOIA is a statute. So they can be "killed" without there being a capital crime. A corporation is created - is born - when some forms are filled out and by-laws are written and a filing fee is paid. Human rights exist at birth and end with death. Corporations do not have such lifespans. Human rights transcend government. Government does not give humans rights. But government DO give corporations rights. They are limited to exist by statute and only by statute.
Remember, you can have a corporation without a single human. Corporations can be the sole owners of other corporations and right on down the line. There are legal shell corporations that are nothing but an address. They are fictive golems and nothing more. Corporations are not individuals. They are not human beings.
What anti trust rules have Apple broken and why do you think the government is treating them differently to Google, Microsoft, Intel and the RAM cartel?
Government treats everyone who has the last name, "Inc." differently. Especially when those companies are willing to provide government with mechanisms of control.
So, anyone who takes the mortgage interest tax deduction should also have their tax returns subject to FOIA requests since they are getting a special tax break?
Pay attention:
An individual ("anyone") has inalienable, constitutional and natural rights to privacy.
A corporation is not an "individual", my friend. A corporation exists due to a specific statute in law and that's it. You could say a corporation only exists by virtue of there being a government, because without that statute, there is no corporation. It's the fiction that allows them to avoid consequences for their actions. Government creates this fiction in order to maintain a particular mechanism of aggregating capital. A corporation is nothing more. In fact, a corporation doesn't even have to be owned by humans. Corporations can be owned by other corporations which are owned by other corporations. There doesn't have to be a human anywhere in the chain outside of the "registered agent" of the corporation, who is usually some legal office in Delaware which isn't subject to any consequences either.
To summarize: Humans have rights. Corporations may be said to have rights, but only subject to government statute. If statute (such as FOIA) is not complied with, then government can pull those rights (which are really only privileges, Citizens United notwithstanding). But even withstanding Citizens United, there is no way, shape or form in which a corporation can be said to have "inalienable" or "natural" rights.
So yes, corporations are subject to different laws, and have different rights, than individuals. Would you have it any other way?
Companies or individuals that abuse these policies are benefiting from the comfort, stability, and infrastructure of being located in the US (and paid for by US citizens), but are taking advantage of cheaper foreign labor at the cost of qualified US workers.
For the techbro libertarians, it's all "get the government out of corporate regulations" until it comes to immigration, when it's "WE NEED MOAR GOVERNMENT!"
A company is going to seek to find the cheapest way to operate. If it means hiring cheaper foreign workers, who are you to take away their freedoms? #CorporateLivesMatter
Stop it with this stupid "diversity" crap already. Not everyone is predisposed to like doing the same thing. It varies by race, sex, beliefs, interests, etc. Asking or even forcing the tech industry to have the same numbers of white/black/asian/etc and 50/50 male/female employes is just incredibly dumb and short-sighted.
Why do the very same egalitarians that are outraged by calls for diversity and demand a "meritocracy" suddenly piss down their legs whenever they hear about companies hiring people with H1B visas?
And yes, housewives were, in fact, the self reliance side of the equation in those families.
Very good. You've figured out that "in those families" is the crucial part of the equation.
So why don't we talk about the number of "working families" instead of the total number of individuals working? You may be on the verge of understanding my argument.
When you measure the success of an economy by the percentage of individuals working, you're looking at it strictly from a point of view that benefits the ownership class and not the working class. The real discussion should be about the over 40% of workers that are making less than $15/hr which is far too little to support a family.
In those years, the '50's and '60s, a much larger percentage of workers in the lower third were earning enough to support a family even though there was much lower "total workforce participation". Today, it takes two people working in a family for the family to afford to live. This is where the economic problems lie, and that began during the Ronald Reagan administration.
The only time it is good not to work is when you are fully self reliant.
You equate "work" with "work for wages". There was a time when it was very common for one parent to stay at home and raise kids. That parent was most certainly not "self reliant". Are we better off now that both parents absolutely have to work and we have latch key kids?
Think about it, we've got all this automation and computerization of the workforce, yet MORE people have to work for families to survive, and now you're telling us that MORE people have to work for communities to survive. Who really benefits from "100% workforce participation"? Certainly not the people working.
Slashdot Mirror
We must have different cable companies.
It has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative". It's that they're all family. They all share the last name, "Inc.".
You can't beet fresh veggies grown in space. It'll lettuce have a more varied diet on long space flights.
Amazon also benefited from the government subsidizing it by not having it charge sales tax for so many years.
Now that it's on a more even playing field with other stores, it will be interesting to watch.
Is the home button the little triangle, circle or square?
http://files.tested.com/photos...
Whose Android device has a "home key"?
I've been to Finland, and I think it's a great place with great people. Good hockey. Also, very hard to spell names.
I was there in May, last year.
Tech industry gets a pass because they provide the elite with the mechanism of control.
The real headline here is that Finland has police.
Pretty much. Other than "18 year-old drunken Finnish youth molesting a reindeer" there really isn't much crime in Finland. What there is can be chalked up to the fact that for 7 months of the year, there's not much to do but drink.
Finland isn't even in the top 100 developed countries in terms of crime rates. Clearly, they're not trying hard enough.
https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/12...
It wasn't so much that they weren't prosecuted, as when they were found guilty, they weren't punished. It wasn't even a slap on the wrist. There was a finding a guilt and then *poof!* it all went away.
Since the DOJ and the US attorneys have great latitude in recommending fines, I can only assume some calls were made and then a decision to look the other way.
Well, these are just some of the ones they've been found guilty of, which you can read about in the judge's opinion when he found them guilty (you could have googled it yourself, you know):
http://assets.nationaljournal....
Bullet points here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
That bastard PopeRatzo never posts citations for his ridiculous assertions.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/2...
Let's look at a few other companies that are "losing money"
1. Sony
2. Sprint
3. Amazon
4. Instagram
5. Snapchat
6. Box
7. Twitter
Yes, they have rights as individuals. They don't lose those rights when they aggregate.
However, I don't see how you can argue that being in a group confers any additional rights on them.
Humans don't lose their human rights. They are inalienable. A corporation can lose its charter for not following statute. And FOIA is a statute. So they can be "killed" without there being a capital crime. A corporation is created - is born - when some forms are filled out and by-laws are written and a filing fee is paid. Human rights exist at birth and end with death. Corporations do not have such lifespans. Human rights transcend government. Government does not give humans rights. But government DO give corporations rights. They are limited to exist by statute and only by statute.
Remember, you can have a corporation without a single human. Corporations can be the sole owners of other corporations and right on down the line. There are legal shell corporations that are nothing but an address. They are fictive golems and nothing more. Corporations are not individuals. They are not human beings.
Government treats everyone who has the last name, "Inc." differently. Especially when those companies are willing to provide government with mechanisms of control.
Pay attention:
An individual ("anyone") has inalienable, constitutional and natural rights to privacy.
A corporation is not an "individual", my friend. A corporation exists due to a specific statute in law and that's it. You could say a corporation only exists by virtue of there being a government, because without that statute, there is no corporation. It's the fiction that allows them to avoid consequences for their actions. Government creates this fiction in order to maintain a particular mechanism of aggregating capital. A corporation is nothing more. In fact, a corporation doesn't even have to be owned by humans. Corporations can be owned by other corporations which are owned by other corporations. There doesn't have to be a human anywhere in the chain outside of the "registered agent" of the corporation, who is usually some legal office in Delaware which isn't subject to any consequences either.
To summarize: Humans have rights. Corporations may be said to have rights, but only subject to government statute. If statute (such as FOIA) is not complied with, then government can pull those rights (which are really only privileges, Citizens United notwithstanding). But even withstanding Citizens United, there is no way, shape or form in which a corporation can be said to have "inalienable" or "natural" rights.
So yes, corporations are subject to different laws, and have different rights, than individuals. Would you have it any other way?
For the techbro libertarians, it's all "get the government out of corporate regulations" until it comes to immigration, when it's "WE NEED MOAR GOVERNMENT!"
A company is going to seek to find the cheapest way to operate. If it means hiring cheaper foreign workers, who are you to take away their freedoms? #CorporateLivesMatter
No, they're demanding federal money be spent on "Congressional Prayer Breakfasts".
Why do the very same egalitarians that are outraged by calls for diversity and demand a "meritocracy" suddenly piss down their legs whenever they hear about companies hiring people with H1B visas?
The Congressional Christian Caucus (KKK...I mean, "CCC") has openly stated that they refuse entrance to atheists. So, their diversity is exactly zero.
http://www.christianpost.com/n...
It's the flip side of Apple getting special breaks from the government. Such as, the DOJ's willingness to ignore antitrust laws.
Now you may ask, "why should the government stick their noses into antitrust violations" but then you'd be tipping your hand as an asshat.
Very good. You've figured out that "in those families" is the crucial part of the equation.
So why don't we talk about the number of "working families" instead of the total number of individuals working? You may be on the verge of understanding my argument.
When you measure the success of an economy by the percentage of individuals working, you're looking at it strictly from a point of view that benefits the ownership class and not the working class. The real discussion should be about the over 40% of workers that are making less than $15/hr which is far too little to support a family.
In those years, the '50's and '60s, a much larger percentage of workers in the lower third were earning enough to support a family even though there was much lower "total workforce participation". Today, it takes two people working in a family for the family to afford to live. This is where the economic problems lie, and that began during the Ronald Reagan administration.
You equate "work" with "work for wages". There was a time when it was very common for one parent to stay at home and raise kids. That parent was most certainly not "self reliant". Are we better off now that both parents absolutely have to work and we have latch key kids?
Think about it, we've got all this automation and computerization of the workforce, yet MORE people have to work for families to survive, and now you're telling us that MORE people have to work for communities to survive. Who really benefits from "100% workforce participation"? Certainly not the people working.