Taxing them more simply means higher prices for all the customers.
Well that's simply horseshit. Paying their taxes increases their costs. Apple make a lot of profit, so paying taxes would reduce that profit. Profit is used for a lot of things; salary increases (rarely), growing the business by investing in new product designs, more staff etc etc, put in the bank for a rainy day, or paid to the shareholders in dividends or via share buy-back schemes.
Apple has stupendous amounts of past profit stashed away as cash reserves in offshore banks, because it doesn't have anything else it can think of to do with it.
Increasing prices to pay their taxes, rather than take a slightly smaller profit makes no sense, because their revenues already far outstrip costs. If a higher price would be more profitable for them (vs decreasing sales), they'd already be charging it.
Apple, like Google, Vodafone, Amazon and any number of multinationals pay hardly any tax in the countries that buy their products. They make their revenue from western countries, but use complex arrangements with shell corporations, intra-company loans, licence payments etc so that those profits are then recorded in 0-tax tiny countries. Thus much higher profits - which ultimately largely end up going to the shareholders (which of course, includes the CEO and other top management). The shareholders are largely already the wealthy, because they're the only ones able to use their money to invest in large amounts of shares instead of you know, buying stuff to live on. Even if the money doesn't go directly out in dividends, it's used to increase the share prices, which has the same effect.
So instead of paying for the infrastructure they use in western countries, for the social safety nets their workers have in europe etc, for the educations their workers get, by paying the pitiful amounts of tax rates they actually should - they divert them to offshore holdings and they end up making the already rich richer.
It's incredibly regressive. In addition, smaller national companies can't pull the same tricks, have lower profits to invest in growing their business, and is a good part of the reason the big multinationals got so big in the first place and displace smaller companies from the marketplace. Who, incidentally, also pay better wages on average.
UK corporation tax rate is 18%, hardly extortionate for the amount they benefit from selling in the UK. And hardly any of the multinationals actually pay anything like that rate, many pay nothing at all - meaning us working stiffs have to pick up the difference to pay for the NHS, roads, police, firemen, social security, pensions etc etc etc, all of which have been under heavy pressure precisely because the government isn't getting enough taxes in to pay for our already thinly stretched services.
Companies in the 50's and 60's used to include social responsibility for their workforce and their communities as part of their thinking - they knew that having customers able to afford their products was a good thing for them in the long run. Now it's all about maximising share price in the shortest possible time, and screw the long term, the workforce, the customer and anyone other than the very richest.
It depends what is meant by devops.
If it means the sysadmins and developers talk to each other and work together in a healthy relationship to deliver stable, scalable apps with heavy use of automation to cut down scut work and human error from both sides - that meet the goals of the organisation - then you're doing it right.
If it's just a synonym for badly run agile, with devs slapping together whatever to meet arbitrary goals rushed into production with insufficient testing, while sysadmins end up firefighting all the time because devs just frack it up even worse now they push direct to production; then it's just another bullshit buzzword.
Sysadmins need to be part coder these days to do their job properly with automation and flexibility; devs need to be part sysadmin so they can factor performance and stability within sane budgets into their designs.
I'm a traditional sysadmin, but I've brushed up on my coding from my undergrad days the last couple of years, and have a couple of my own projects deployed now. I work pretty closely with our 3rd party developers, so can understand and support their requirements better, and they work with me rather than round me. Is that devops? I dunno, but it beats the hell out of the usual silo'd suspicion and blame game.
Buggy drivers are still a problem - last I checked, elite:dangerous + amd + win 10 was still a broken mess that works fine on 7 or 8.1. There have been numerous problems with the saitek X55 windows 10 driver. A number of old printers also no longer work.
And of course, if you're using windows media centre, then installing windows 10 will murder it.
That's just the broken stuff I know about from personal/friends experience, off the cuff. I'm sure there are many more. You've also got to factor the privacy implications of all the stuff windows 10 sends back in exchange for your 'free' upgrade.
Windows 8.1 + startisback works fine, and I see no good reason to 'upgrade' any time soon.
If you look at the draft it doesn't mention ISPs either - VPN providers are just "telecommunication operators" providing a "telecommunications service", see Section 193-195 for the definitions used:
>"Communication”, in relation to a telecommunications operator,
telecommunications service or telecommunication system, includes—
(a) anything comprising speech, music, sounds, visual images or data of any description
Also the definition of data made be chuckle, it means anything that's data and any information that's not data too! Presumably that's to counter suggestions that encrypted data isn't data and to encompass types of information transfer that might not have been foreseen.
How about a blacklight/ultra-violet fluorescing label on the spine - that way you can turn the light off in a room full of books, turn on a blacklight and see the book almost immediately??
Pair it with human readable, QR and RFID labels and you've got a pretty comprehensive label. If you have a stick on label that goes in the front cover with a part that then wraps on to the cover and around the spine you'll be able to see it from the front, back or spine side too. Make it a strong contrasting colour and it will stand out on most book spines.
ummmm... you might actually try reading what he wrote. Mighty big of you to say that he agrees with what you are saying.
Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind
What is right wing about filing a lawsuit to unmask a doe, suing that person, then settling for a much smaller amount. It seems this is used by many different trolls, and likely doesn't have any political ideology behind it. It is sleazy though. Filing a lawsuit with the intention of settling just to get a payout is wrong. It is short circuiting the justice system for personal profit.
Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans.
The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".
To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".
This has nothing to do with the DMCA, this is a straight out copyright infringement lawsuit being filed. The real problem is that the methods the copyright holders (or the copyright enforcement goons acting on their behalf) are using to identify torrent users aren't good enough and its good to see at least one judge willing to call these enforcers out on it.
Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.
I think the placebo effects often come from getting to spend some real time and sit down with someone who will discuss your problem at length, come up with a 'solution' and tailor it just for you.
They then hand you your bottle of water, and off you go, happy that you've been given proper attention and care by a 'professional', compared to the 7 minute appointment where the over-worked and rushed GP had to try and figure out what was actually wrong, whether it was treatable, and what treatment or referral to give, without actually lying to the patient.
So it gives some people relief for symptoms because they've been given reassurance and time they don't get on the NHS. Rather than funding homeopathy, we should be funding more GPs. And change the rules to allow them to prescribe sugar pills if they want, instead of sending patients away with nothing...
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.