Again - IT DOESN'T MATTER. The tax rate on income for US companies was higher than that for Canada. End of discussion. Your own POST says that as much. You do realize that GDP is not just corporate income? It includes Government spending, individual spending, etc. Taxes were higher - your own source says as much. You keep going to the "percent of GDP" as a defense - but that's irrelevant and says nothing about the tax RATE that a company pays. Flat out.
So, to protest the repeal of the executive actions in 2015 that created Net neutrality, he's blocking fast traffic to show how bad it was prior to 2015, when there was no Net neutrality. Right? You mean we didn't pay for faster access to some sites, just for overall speed of the tube connected to the home?
No, that is irrelevant. You can have a high tax rate, and yet pay a small amount relative to the GDP. Here is an example:
Country A has a 30% tax rate, and a GDP of $1,000,000. Country C has a 20% tax rate, and a GDP of $500,000.
A company that makes $100,000 per year is looking to relocate to either of these countries. In country A, they would pay (0.3 * $100,000) $30,000 per year. In country C, they would pay (0.2 * $100,000) $20,000. So the company chooses country C, because it would pay less tax.
Outside observer AC notices this, and does a quick calculation. In country A, the company would pay $30,000 in taxes; but that would only be 3% of the GDP. In country C, the company would pay $20,000, but that would be 4% of the GDP.
In his wisdom, observer AC declares the company is paying less taxes in country A! Why? Well, the fact that the company pays $10,000 more in country A doesn't matter to AC, he looks only at the share of GDP. Because country A's GDP is twice that of country C, the higher taxes paid by the company accounts for a smaller share of the GDP. But then, that doesn't matter to the company - because relocating in country C saves the company $10,000 - even if the $20,000 they pay is actually more of the GDP.
Does that clarify it for you? The US economy is huge compared to Canada; in fact, California and Texas both have GDPs greater than Canada! Paying $100,000 in corporate income taxes in Canada is definitely lower than paying $500,000 in corporate income taxes in the US. But if you look at the irrelevant statistic of "scaled by GDP", Canada has a bigger number. It means nothing - $100,000 in Canada is a higher percentage of the Canadian GDP than $500,000 is of the US GDP. But that's $400,000 difference - and cannot be ignored.
And once again, the data you link to explicitly states that the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE - that is the tax rate paid after all the deductions, loopholes, and such - is HIGHER in the US than in Canada. It says so right in black-and-white in your own reference. If you choose to ignore it, that is your loss. The fact is that the US had one of the highest marginal, average, and effective corporate income tax rates in the world. And now we've come down to about the OECD average, putting us on a more even playing field with the rest of the world.
No, it's required. Apple gets around it in the EU by shipping a micro USB to Lightning dongle, so the charger can be the legislated standard with a micro USB output.
Your own link shows my point; the US used to hit corporations at nearly twice the rate of our neighbors, and everyone else in the OECD. So what's your point, again? You claim they do NOT pay that tax - so what do they pay, if they are not paying the tax claimed in the data which you provided?
Lightning cables either fail quickly or last practically forever... Lightning just works.
Except, apparently, when it doesn't?
And it's much more expensive, not as ubiquitous, and only works on your iOS device. If you have a Macbook, you need to carry extra cables for your iOS devices and your type C ports...
Given that the corporate tax rate cut just passed brought our corporate income taxes into line with most of the rest of the OECD (including the EU), I don't see how they are NOT paying appropriate levels of taxes. Unless your contention is that all companies, everywhere, aren't paying enough in taxes?
Why would you pay through a 501(c)3 unless you are well into the AMT thing, though? Or have a SALT above $10K? With a charitable deduction, you only get $0.33 on the dollar, so unless you have a $30K SALT due, it's better to just pay directly. Which, I think for 99% of all/. folks, would be the better option.
Micro USB is superior to Lightning. Yes, Lightning and type C can allow you to plug in either way as compared to micro USB. But Lightning is not available on basically anything other than iOS devices. I have to carry an extra, special cable for just that. Or lots of dongles/adapters. Micro USB is ubiquitous, required by law in the EU, low cost, and fairly robust. I can get plugs and jacks for pennies at a dozen suppliers, and cables are everywhere. Lightning? Not so much... I can build cables with multiple connectors on them (type C, micro USB, mini USB, mini HDMI, etc) but Lightning is limited to just Lightning-to-USB C or Lightning-to-Type A only (per Apple's requirements). The flexibility of use, ubiquity, and low cost make micro USB superior to Lightning.
Now, if you want to rate the ease-of-insertion higher than all that, then great. Go with type C - and then you gain flexibility of use (meaning you can mix and match connectors - and as many as you want - on a given cable), ubiquity, and low cost (relative to Lightning) and be done with it.
So in what way is Lightning superior to type C? Or, discounting the dual orientation feature, in what way is Lightning superior to micro USB?
1. You do. You claimed the other poster was wrong with his $400 claim; he was about as correct as you were - in the range, but not accurate. If you're going to attack for being incorrect - well, you're incorrect as well.
2. Integrations take nothing, and no need to know account authorization. SONOS is able to do it, I guess Apple isn't as smart.
3. Sub bass typically is 60 Hz to 20 Hz; deep bass usually refers to sub bass. Sorry. BTW, in small enclosures, ported or TL are the WRONG way to go. Sealed will gain you more output down deep - especially where these types of products tend to be placed (near walls and corners). As far as the excursion goes, that is not linear Xmax at all; it's Xmech, which is mechanical throw. The Klippel Xmag/Xsus would be closer to about 6mm one way. Decent, but short of the SONOS Play:1 woofer. NOTE: if you want to get into a tech discussion of audio, I'm all for it - I'll teach you a few things, if you're willing to learn. I guarantee you've heard my work before, either in the consumer space (SONOS, Polk, Infinity, Genesis, many more), pro space (Mackie, Event, KRK, EAW, many more), or recording space (Blue, Rode, AEA, many many more).
4. Imaging is dominated by 700 Hz to 3 kHz, and with an array as presented (in which the "tweeters" are really mid-tweeters, as they cross over around ~400 Hz) you will not gain decent image at all. Image localization is dominated by IADs in the ~700 Hz to 1500 Hz range, and then as your perception shifts to ITDs from 1500 Hz to 3000 Hz. Cues above and below exist, but are secondary to those in two critical octaves: 750 Hz to 3000 Hz. Given that ITDs in the 1500 Hz to 4 kHz range are heavily impacted by the transfer function of the pinna and your facial structure, having a SINGLE SPEAKER create all the sound will result in poor imaging, no matter what you try to do. You cannot simulate ITDs without spaced elemants. And since the HomePod does NOT allow stereo pairs...
6. "Apple has just about wiped out Sonos' entire business model" - provably false. SONOS' central promise is to listen to all the music on the Earth, in any room, in any combination. Apple lets you listen to THEIR music only, in one room at a time, in no combinations. It doesn't address a single feature of SONOS' central product offerings. As far as the music stopping when you leave - start an Airplay from your phone. Then take your phone down the block. What happens to the playback? Oh, someone else can restart it from their phone - but that's not the same as SONOS, where the speaker itself streams from the Internet - not from your phone. Why have an Apple proprietary "Bluetooth like" operation, when you can have something much better?
1. False. The price will be $349 to $382.02 (depending upon where you live).
2. False. If you believe Apple does not use your data for its own needs - you're a fool. But you're the FakeTimCook, so...
3. False. "Deep bass" implies sub-bass. That would be significant output below 40 Hz which this does NOT have (a good acquaintance of mine designed that woofer). "Boom" is actually deep bass, as the typical boom car is tuned around 33 Hz.
4. False. Imaging clues are not in the high frequencies, our imagining is dominated between ~700 Hz and 3 kHz, by ITD and IAD effects.
5. True! You got one! But only because there are a legion of Apple Acolytes like you that would buy anything from Apple because Apple.
6. (Apple killed SONOS) False. What happens if you are streaming music at home, then you head out? The music stops with Airplay, meaning your wife/significant other must now pair to the device and stream. SONOS streams for you - the smarts are in the speaker. It doesn't use the Bluetooth speaker model of Airplay, it makes the speaker itself play the source -meaning you don't even need a phone to control it (Amazon Echo, Google Home, tablets, etc.)
I like being able to ask my home to change what I'm listening to in a given room, turn the lights on/off as needed, change the temperature, tell me what the weather will be in the afternoon (do I need to bring rain gear on my ride or not), and so on. Kind of convenient, really.
As far as Airplay goes - what does it have that SONOS doesn't have? What does Airplay offer that a Bluetooth stream (AptX at that) doesn't offer?
Nice! So it's a big, Bluetooth speaker! Hurray! We can listen to the HomePod - one at a time - until I have to run out to the store to get some more food, and then the party stops until I return and pair again. If only there was a way to to build a speaker that would stream music from the Internet itself so you didn't have to be tethered to your cell phone all the time...
So you're saying the rules before 2015 weren't acceptable? Really? When the Internet was created and expanded and became essential? Those rules weren't good? So we needed an entirely NEW set, not based on legislation at all but simply executive decision? And when a new President comes in, reverses those new executive decision-based rules (which had been in place for less than 3 years), and says to Congress "hey, do your job and pass something", that's all wrong?
I guess in your mind it's better to have unilateral, dictatorial actions rather than actual legislated, deliberative laws... Meaning you prefer, literally, fascism.
So do we need to regulate marketing? Sabotage is clearly illegal, as it tramples on the rights of others. But mergers? Advertising? That needs to be regulated? Government should be as small as possible, rather than all powerful, and in the business world it should be limited simply to remedying offenses against the rights of others. NOT potential offenses (anti-monopoly type actions) or picking-and-choosing winners. By giving Government such power, it becomes trivial for players to legally buy laws and regulations to trample on the rights of others.
That's not what I said or am even talking about. Apparently, to some of the people in this thread, net neutrality was around since 1934 and applied to all ISPs because they are common carriers. If that was the case, then why did the FCC decide to establish regulations about ISPs being treated as common carriers in 2015? And how did the Internet get rolling and explode without ISPs being common carriers?
You're missing the point that for the VAST majority of the life - and most of the growth - of the Internet, ISPs were not common carriers, and it was an executive action that unilaterally decided as such with in fact there was no driving legislation to do so. Yet somehow, because we're going back to how it was in 2014 and earlier, the Internet will now collapse and we'll all be subject to the whims of whatever #BIGEVILISP wants...
Ahh, I see. So the way to do it is to buy politicians so you can change the laws, and make it work in your favor. Imagine if Government wasn't so strong that it could do just that very thing? Then where can you buy your politicians, since they cannot change the market/playing field as you want?
Well, Hillary! did take $1,000 and turn it into $100,000 in cattle futures, so Russia taking $1,000,000 and turning into the equivalent of $1,000,000,000 in spending is, I guess, plausible...
ISPs were never common carriers until an FCC regulation change in 2015. Note that prior to that executive action (and I say executive action, because it was taken by the executive branch at the urging of the President), net neutrality had been debated in Congress and had not been defined. Common carrier status for ISPs has only been around for a few years, and was not a legislative result, but a purely executive, regulatory action.
Slashdot Mirror
Again - IT DOESN'T MATTER. The tax rate on income for US companies was higher than that for Canada. End of discussion. Your own POST says that as much. You do realize that GDP is not just corporate income? It includes Government spending, individual spending, etc. Taxes were higher - your own source says as much. You keep going to the "percent of GDP" as a defense - but that's irrelevant and says nothing about the tax RATE that a company pays. Flat out.
So, to protest the repeal of the executive actions in 2015 that created Net neutrality, he's blocking fast traffic to show how bad it was prior to 2015, when there was no Net neutrality. Right? You mean we didn't pay for faster access to some sites, just for overall speed of the tube connected to the home?
Hard to spend BTC without transferring it to those other currencies... At least for most things one needs/wants in life!
Currently it's 1.75 RS232s, but can go as high as a Firewire.
No, that is irrelevant. You can have a high tax rate, and yet pay a small amount relative to the GDP. Here is an example:
Country A has a 30% tax rate, and a GDP of $1,000,000. Country C has a 20% tax rate, and a GDP of $500,000.
A company that makes $100,000 per year is looking to relocate to either of these countries. In country A, they would pay (0.3 * $100,000) $30,000 per year. In country C, they would pay (0.2 * $100,000) $20,000. So the company chooses country C, because it would pay less tax.
Outside observer AC notices this, and does a quick calculation. In country A, the company would pay $30,000 in taxes; but that would only be 3% of the GDP. In country C, the company would pay $20,000, but that would be 4% of the GDP.
In his wisdom, observer AC declares the company is paying less taxes in country A! Why? Well, the fact that the company pays $10,000 more in country A doesn't matter to AC, he looks only at the share of GDP. Because country A's GDP is twice that of country C, the higher taxes paid by the company accounts for a smaller share of the GDP. But then, that doesn't matter to the company - because relocating in country C saves the company $10,000 - even if the $20,000 they pay is actually more of the GDP.
Does that clarify it for you? The US economy is huge compared to Canada; in fact, California and Texas both have GDPs greater than Canada! Paying $100,000 in corporate income taxes in Canada is definitely lower than paying $500,000 in corporate income taxes in the US. But if you look at the irrelevant statistic of "scaled by GDP", Canada has a bigger number. It means nothing - $100,000 in Canada is a higher percentage of the Canadian GDP than $500,000 is of the US GDP. But that's $400,000 difference - and cannot be ignored.
And once again, the data you link to explicitly states that the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE - that is the tax rate paid after all the deductions, loopholes, and such - is HIGHER in the US than in Canada. It says so right in black-and-white in your own reference. If you choose to ignore it, that is your loss. The fact is that the US had one of the highest marginal, average, and effective corporate income tax rates in the world. And now we've come down to about the OECD average, putting us on a more even playing field with the rest of the world.
No, it's required. Apple gets around it in the EU by shipping a micro USB to Lightning dongle, so the charger can be the legislated standard with a micro USB output.
From your own link:
US Marginal Effective Tax Rate: 35.3%
Canada Marginal Effective Tax Rate: 19%
OECD average Marginal Effective Tax Rate: 19.4%
Your own link shows my point; the US used to hit corporations at nearly twice the rate of our neighbors, and everyone else in the OECD. So what's your point, again? You claim they do NOT pay that tax - so what do they pay, if they are not paying the tax claimed in the data which you provided?
Lightning cables either fail quickly or last practically forever... Lightning just works.
Except, apparently, when it doesn't?
And it's much more expensive, not as ubiquitous, and only works on your iOS device. If you have a Macbook, you need to carry extra cables for your iOS devices and your type C ports...
Given that the corporate tax rate cut just passed brought our corporate income taxes into line with most of the rest of the OECD (including the EU), I don't see how they are NOT paying appropriate levels of taxes. Unless your contention is that all companies, everywhere, aren't paying enough in taxes?
Why would you pay through a 501(c)3 unless you are well into the AMT thing, though? Or have a SALT above $10K? With a charitable deduction, you only get $0.33 on the dollar, so unless you have a $30K SALT due, it's better to just pay directly. Which, I think for 99% of all /. folks, would be the better option.
Yes, it's called Kayak. Enter when and where you want to fly, select your airline alliance, and you're good to go.
Micro USB is superior to Lightning. Yes, Lightning and type C can allow you to plug in either way as compared to micro USB. But Lightning is not available on basically anything other than iOS devices. I have to carry an extra, special cable for just that. Or lots of dongles/adapters. Micro USB is ubiquitous, required by law in the EU, low cost, and fairly robust. I can get plugs and jacks for pennies at a dozen suppliers, and cables are everywhere. Lightning? Not so much... I can build cables with multiple connectors on them (type C, micro USB, mini USB, mini HDMI, etc) but Lightning is limited to just Lightning-to-USB C or Lightning-to-Type A only (per Apple's requirements). The flexibility of use, ubiquity, and low cost make micro USB superior to Lightning.
Now, if you want to rate the ease-of-insertion higher than all that, then great. Go with type C - and then you gain flexibility of use (meaning you can mix and match connectors - and as many as you want - on a given cable), ubiquity, and low cost (relative to Lightning) and be done with it.
So in what way is Lightning superior to type C? Or, discounting the dual orientation feature, in what way is Lightning superior to micro USB?
1. You do. You claimed the other poster was wrong with his $400 claim; he was about as correct as you were - in the range, but not accurate. If you're going to attack for being incorrect - well, you're incorrect as well.
2. Integrations take nothing, and no need to know account authorization. SONOS is able to do it, I guess Apple isn't as smart.
3. Sub bass typically is 60 Hz to 20 Hz; deep bass usually refers to sub bass. Sorry. BTW, in small enclosures, ported or TL are the WRONG way to go. Sealed will gain you more output down deep - especially where these types of products tend to be placed (near walls and corners).
As far as the excursion goes, that is not linear Xmax at all; it's Xmech, which is mechanical throw. The Klippel Xmag/Xsus would be closer to about 6mm one way. Decent, but short of the SONOS Play:1 woofer.
NOTE: if you want to get into a tech discussion of audio, I'm all for it - I'll teach you a few things, if you're willing to learn. I guarantee you've heard my work before, either in the consumer space (SONOS, Polk, Infinity, Genesis, many more), pro space (Mackie, Event, KRK, EAW, many more), or recording space (Blue, Rode, AEA, many many more).
4. Imaging is dominated by 700 Hz to 3 kHz, and with an array as presented (in which the "tweeters" are really mid-tweeters, as they cross over around ~400 Hz) you will not gain decent image at all. Image localization is dominated by IADs in the ~700 Hz to 1500 Hz range, and then as your perception shifts to ITDs from 1500 Hz to 3000 Hz. Cues above and below exist, but are secondary to those in two critical octaves: 750 Hz to 3000 Hz. Given that ITDs in the 1500 Hz to 4 kHz range are heavily impacted by the transfer function of the pinna and your facial structure, having a SINGLE SPEAKER create all the sound will result in poor imaging, no matter what you try to do. You cannot simulate ITDs without spaced elemants. And since the HomePod does NOT allow stereo pairs...
6. "Apple has just about wiped out Sonos' entire business model" - provably false. SONOS' central promise is to listen to all the music on the Earth, in any room, in any combination. Apple lets you listen to THEIR music only, in one room at a time, in no combinations. It doesn't address a single feature of SONOS' central product offerings.
As far as the music stopping when you leave - start an Airplay from your phone. Then take your phone down the block. What happens to the playback? Oh, someone else can restart it from their phone - but that's not the same as SONOS, where the speaker itself streams from the Internet - not from your phone. Why have an Apple proprietary "Bluetooth like" operation, when you can have something much better?
1. False. The price will be $349 to $382.02 (depending upon where you live).
2. False. If you believe Apple does not use your data for its own needs - you're a fool. But you're the FakeTimCook, so...
3. False. "Deep bass" implies sub-bass. That would be significant output below 40 Hz which this does NOT have (a good acquaintance of mine designed that woofer). "Boom" is actually deep bass, as the typical boom car is tuned around 33 Hz.
4. False. Imaging clues are not in the high frequencies, our imagining is dominated between ~700 Hz and 3 kHz, by ITD and IAD effects.
5. True! You got one! But only because there are a legion of Apple Acolytes like you that would buy anything from Apple because Apple.
6. (Apple killed SONOS) False. What happens if you are streaming music at home, then you head out? The music stops with Airplay, meaning your wife/significant other must now pair to the device and stream. SONOS streams for you - the smarts are in the speaker. It doesn't use the Bluetooth speaker model of Airplay, it makes the speaker itself play the source -meaning you don't even need a phone to control it (Amazon Echo, Google Home, tablets, etc.)
I like being able to ask my home to change what I'm listening to in a given room, turn the lights on/off as needed, change the temperature, tell me what the weather will be in the afternoon (do I need to bring rain gear on my ride or not), and so on. Kind of convenient, really.
As far as Airplay goes - what does it have that SONOS doesn't have? What does Airplay offer that a Bluetooth stream (AptX at that) doesn't offer?
Nice! So it's a big, Bluetooth speaker! Hurray! We can listen to the HomePod - one at a time - until I have to run out to the store to get some more food, and then the party stops until I return and pair again. If only there was a way to to build a speaker that would stream music from the Internet itself so you didn't have to be tethered to your cell phone all the time...
So you're saying the rules before 2015 weren't acceptable? Really? When the Internet was created and expanded and became essential? Those rules weren't good? So we needed an entirely NEW set, not based on legislation at all but simply executive decision? And when a new President comes in, reverses those new executive decision-based rules (which had been in place for less than 3 years), and says to Congress "hey, do your job and pass something", that's all wrong?
I guess in your mind it's better to have unilateral, dictatorial actions rather than actual legislated, deliberative laws... Meaning you prefer, literally, fascism.
So do we need to regulate marketing? Sabotage is clearly illegal, as it tramples on the rights of others. But mergers? Advertising? That needs to be regulated? Government should be as small as possible, rather than all powerful, and in the business world it should be limited simply to remedying offenses against the rights of others. NOT potential offenses (anti-monopoly type actions) or picking-and-choosing winners. By giving Government such power, it becomes trivial for players to legally buy laws and regulations to trample on the rights of others.
That's not what I said or am even talking about. Apparently, to some of the people in this thread, net neutrality was around since 1934 and applied to all ISPs because they are common carriers. If that was the case, then why did the FCC decide to establish regulations about ISPs being treated as common carriers in 2015? And how did the Internet get rolling and explode without ISPs being common carriers?
You're missing the point that for the VAST majority of the life - and most of the growth - of the Internet, ISPs were not common carriers, and it was an executive action that unilaterally decided as such with in fact there was no driving legislation to do so. Yet somehow, because we're going back to how it was in 2014 and earlier, the Internet will now collapse and we'll all be subject to the whims of whatever #BIGEVILISP wants...
Ahh, I see. So the way to do it is to buy politicians so you can change the laws, and make it work in your favor. Imagine if Government wasn't so strong that it could do just that very thing? Then where can you buy your politicians, since they cannot change the market/playing field as you want?
Well, Hillary! did take $1,000 and turn it into $100,000 in cattle futures, so Russia taking $1,000,000 and turning into the equivalent of $1,000,000,000 in spending is, I guess, plausible...
OK, what regulation or law considered ISPs as common carriers (as recognized by law or regulatory agencies) prior to 2015?
If you sold SaaS, then you would get paid at least monthly, per user...
Australia wants their own version of Enron and California, but they want it all dressed up in green...
ISPs were never common carriers until an FCC regulation change in 2015. Note that prior to that executive action (and I say executive action, because it was taken by the executive branch at the urging of the President), net neutrality had been debated in Congress and had not been defined. Common carrier status for ISPs has only been around for a few years, and was not a legislative result, but a purely executive, regulatory action.