Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not the only strategy (Score 1) 324

by larkost (#47922389) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

The problem is that it is really easy to move "profit" from one place to another. A common ploy is to have one part of a company that is in a low-tax area to charge other parts of the company "licensing fees". In some cases this "licensing fee" means that the other parts of the company now make no profits.

If you try to tax revenues rather than profits, then you wind up really hurting (true) low-margin companies, and wind up under-charging (relatively) high-margin ones.

The best proposal I have seen yet is to tax companies on a percentage of the global profits based on the percentage of revenue earned in that tax district. However this would be really difficult to enforce in a reasonable way because 1) How do you audit all of the books in all of the countries to make sure they are not just hiding things? 2) It is still difficult to define profits, especially when you have multiple countries laws to deal with. 3) There is a major possible loophole in just moving all of the profits from one company to another using the same "licensing fee" trick, and having the licensing company have a presence only in a tax haven country.

Comment: Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 348

by larkost (#47874367) Attached to: When Scientists Give Up

I would say that the defense spending one is a bit misleading, since a lot of basic science winds up under the Defense Department part of it. Friends of mine were researchers working on a particular parasite that primarily lived in snails. Because some of the neurological pathways involved in what the parasite did to the snails were congruent to those in humans they managed to get funding under the Defense Department banner. I am not sure that any weapon would ever be able come out if this (unless there was a snail invasion), but it was in that category anyways.

Comment: Re:Legacy Support (Score 1) 730

by larkost (#47864787) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

If you really need that legay support for software [1], then there are some solutions out there already, like Chubby Bunny:

http://www.macwindows.com/Emulator-for-Mac-OS-9-in-OS-X-updated-for-Mountain-Lion.html

And you are really wrong about almost everything in this post. You would not like trying to run iOS apps and trying to mimic their gestures on MacOS with a mouse. And there are very few people who are holding onto old hardware because of older data. You are very much in the minority, and Apple's quarterly statements prove you wrong.

[1] Linking up with legacy hardware is far more common and difficult in my experience. I have seen old hardware from vendors that have gone out of business that is no longer supportable on modern hardware (Windows and MacOS). For researchers trying to re-do older experiments this can be very annoying.

Comment: Re:just because the dept of ed.... (Score 3, Interesting) 528

by larkost (#47765887) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

Do you have a source for that? The only things I can find in this area:

1) In 1995 they "re-centered" the test because scores were starting to slip.
2) In 2005 the Math section was made marginally harder to reduce the number of perfect scores. They also changed the verbal section to remove analogies.
3) In 2016 they will remove the more obscure vocabulary words to focus on more commonly used words.
4) MENSA will no longer take scores from the SAT after January of 1994 as criteria for admission.

None of this speaks to a steadily rising difficulty. And with one exception seems to indicate a little bit of the opposite.

Comment: Try SIGUCCS (Score 1) 131

by larkost (#47608087) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Good Technology Conferences To Attend?

As others have already said, the original question is really vague since there is little information about what corner of IT work will be done. But since it is at a college, there is a good chance that it will fall under the area that SIGUCCS conference tries to cover.

http://www.siguccs.org/Conference/2014/about.shtml

I went and presented 5 or 6 years ago and found it to be an OK conference. I did not get a lot out of it from the technical presentations, but it is a really good place to get an idea of what your peers are doing, and the "hallway track" is really good.

Comment: They are not a charity (Score 1) 228

by larkost (#47362617) Attached to: The New 501(c)(3) and the Future of Open Source In the US

My read of this is that they applied as a charity, but the IRS's definition of a charity requires that you be serving a distinct, disadvantaged group of people. A quick look at the software that Yorba produces (http://yorba.org), does not lead me to believe that their software would particularly benefit any specific disadvantaged groups more than other people.

So by the rules that the IRS is working on, it does appear that they do not qualify as a charity. And to be honest, this is a correct definition, they are not running a charity. Now there is a valid question about whether there should be a method for them to run a non-profit without being taxes, but they are not a charity.

Comment: Re:Fucking Casuals. (Score 2) 303

by larkost (#46879007) Attached to: SEC Chair On HFT: 'The Markets Are Not Rigged'

The “within a few seconds of each other” shows that you have not really paid attention here. The problem is that if you are trying to place a single composite order on multiple markets. Unless you time your partial orders to arrive at their respective markets within 10 milliseconds or so, you will find that someone has magicallly swooped in to the markets that got your orders 20 miliseconds later than the others and bought what you were trying to buy and is now offering them for marginally more.

The way that they are doing this is by watching for your orders and predicting that you will go to other markets as well, and then having faster network routes than you can have to all of the markets. While this might not be illegal, it is copletely unfair. And more imporantly this means that people are making money from the markets (sucking money out) without providing anything like a benifit to the market as a whole.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 818

by larkost (#46768297) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

1) There is the nearly-stated assertion that teen pregnecy is on the rise. That is completly wrong, and tenn pregency in the US has been dropping for more than 20 years: http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/images/teenbirthsgraph2011.png

I don’t know of anywhere where teen pregnency has been glorified. So since you are wrong on the basic fact I am going to have to call your second assertion there false as well.

2) “Pro-Life is not about the life of hte baby”. You are correct that a fertilized cell is alive and the DNA is human, but the same can be said about the while blood cells in the vial of blood that gets drawn for testing. So that can’t possibly be the test to meet. The real argument here is at what point from fetalized cell to birth does that become worthy of the protections of being a “person”. And there is no clear test for that. The "ends a beating heart” type slogans sound great, but don’t have much actual content in them.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 818

by larkost (#46768029) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Thank you for being clear about your belifs and views. I happen to disagree with you about a feterilized egg being deserving of the protections of a full person, but this is a clear disagreement rather than the messy one that most abortion debates fall into because both sides can’t recognize the true differences of opinion.

But I do have one quibble: it is not ‘life’ that is at debate here, it is personhood. After all, a tomato has ‘life’ but we don’t usually call the creation or eating of a BLT ‘murder’.

Comment: Re:Yes, quite the cautionary tale indeed. (Score 1) 249

by larkost (#46181093) Attached to: Wozniak To Apple: Consider Building an Android Phone

While your statement about Windows never shipping on a Mac is technically true, the "PC Compatibility Cards for Power Macintosh" cards came really close. They were basically most of a PC on a PCI card using a Pentium processor, so you could have a Windows machine running inside your PowerMac:

http://www.mug.jhmi.edu/mirrors/infoalley/0496/25/pc.html

They came with DOS installed, so you had to instal your own copy of Windows.

Comment: Re:water in sci-fi plots (Score 1) 66

by larkost (#46039203) Attached to: Water Plume Detected At Dwarf Planet Ceres

You are absolutely correct about the water plots in sic-fi being entertaining, but not realistic. Visitors to our solar system would be far more likely either grab icy asteroids from the asteroid belt (lots of them, and they are not at the bottom of a gravity well), or collect hydrogen and oxygen from any one of many sources and make your own. Sucking water off even an undefended planet is unlikely to make sense form an energy perspective.

But on the defense side: anyone with enough technology/experience to be able to cross interstellar space with the idea of fetching something (as opposed to colonization, where a desperate enough group could wing it) would have enough technology to wipe us off the face of the planet so quickly that we would have no chance. But the human race being obliterated by orbital bombardment does not make for entertaining cinema.

Comment: Re:how would it work in the real world? (Score 2) 308

by larkost (#45656231) Attached to: Google's Plan To Kill the Corporate Network

You have this a little wrong. The cost of the computers is trivial in comparison to other things. What you are seeing is that the bean counters are focusing on reducing one specific cost (computer hardware) without taking other costs into consideration (employe productivity). Undoutably this is a case of “penny wise, pound foolish”, and is probably because no-one can write up the other costs into a spreadsheet, so the one number that is easy to define wins.

This is what is wrong with the “if you can measure it, you can mange it” mantra that business schools have been drumming into MBAs for a generation now.

Comment: Re:As an outsider. (Score 1) 559

by larkost (#45357227) Attached to: Healthcare.gov Official Resigns, Website Still a Disaster

How is the ACA/Obamacare price controlls? There are lots of bits to the law, but the two main parts of the law fall into three parts:

1) Setting up marketplaces with clearly defined levels of service (so all of the comparable plans have to meet minimum specs). This takes away much of the complexity that has meant that average people can better judge what they are getting (so adding clarity, which the theory of capitolism takes as an assumption).

2) Sets up a penalty for not having health care insurance. This is effctivly a requirement that everyone have health insurance.

3) Requiring that all plans (on the marketplaces or not) cover certain things (e.g.: pregnancy, or mental health) and bars health insurance providers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions or certain other attributes (e.g: being a woman).

Nowhere here is there any price controls, rather it sets up a much more fair marketplace (i.e.: one more true to capitalist theory) than the deceptive an exclusionary one we have now.

And your “9% additional tax” number seems to come out of nowhere. Since you mention Texas, you are going to have to explain how having 1-in-3 Texans with NO insurance coverage (so effectively NO access to real healthcare) is anything like a good situation. Is it going to cost money to correct that? Yes absolutely, but how much more work is that going to allow people to do once they are not sick? Every company I have ever worked for has beat the drum that a helathy workforce is in the interest of the bottom line. Are you saying that Texas can’t figure that out?

Comment: Re:Common Core isn't all that bad (Score 1) 663

by larkost (#45312505) Attached to: A Math Test That's Rotten To the Common Core

Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion. It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option. Given your sample story it is clear that the b) option is the correct one since it best summarizes the story. If your kid missed that question, then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story. So the test seems to have done a good job corrctly evaluating your child.

Question #2 is indeed asking your child to come up with reasonable extensions on the story. They are expecting that your child not mearly comprehend the individual facts presented in the story, but have enough insight into what is going on to be able to extend it. Again if your child is incabable of doing this then the test has again correctly described the limits of your child’s abilites.

Both of these questions are exactly the sort of questions that should be on tests. They go beyond the wrote learning model, and test for true understanding, and even better: the second tests information sysnthisis. You should be celebrating a test that has accurately found a weakness in your child’s abilities, and working with your child to better develop these skills.

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...