Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Did they break any laws? (Score 1) 709

by tukang (#43781107) Attached to: Web of Tax Shelters Saved Apple Billions, Inquiry Finds
That's just hogwash. If it isn't socially acceptable to pay only what's legal then obviously the laws need to be changed and I'm completely for that but any company that pays more than is legally required puts itself at a competitive disadvantage and may ultimately risk its survival when its competitors don't do the same. If Apple pays more taxes than it's legally required to do so while Microsoft and Google don't, then guess what, Google and MS now have, in relative terms, more money to spend on R&D, employees, or they could even simply reduce the prices of their products. Business is cut throat and to expect a businesses to pay more taxes out of "social" goodness is a pipe dream. I say fix the rules and apply them to everyone.

Comment: Re:Local vs. global (Score 1) 121

You're assuming that Foursquare will cost more and be less effective than local print media but I don't know if those assumptions are right because delivering coupons electronically can be cheaper and more effective than advertising in a paper. Foursquare can target their ads based on your check ins, so they should be able to achieve higher conversion rates and it's more convenient for users to just get a few targeted coupons vs having to find a paper and then searching through all coupons. If I were into using coupons I would definitely prefer getting my coupons electronically than from a paper.

I'm not saying that their model is a slam dunk but I can also see how they could provide a useful service that's more cost effective than what's currently out there.

Comment: Re:More person, more cost. Fine. (Score 1) 587

by tukang (#43350407) Attached to: Samoa Air Rolling Out "Pay As You Weigh" Fares
You have to look at the costs. It may be that the gov't can provide better rail service but if they're investing 10x the amount of money over what a private operator would invest, then it's not necessarily more competitive. You have to remember that every dollar the gov't invests into rail, could be invested elsewhere, so it's not free money.

Comment: Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? (Score 1) 132

by tukang (#42634255) Attached to: Google Invests $1 Billion To Build New London HQ
Business is adversarial. If you do not take advantage of a tax haven or tax loophole while your competition does, you will fall behind your competition, whether it's because they can now offer their product at a lower price or invest more in r&d and your chances of going out of business will increase. Therefore, it is not immoral for businesses to take advantage of tax loopholes.

The problem is the loophole, not the businesses or people that are using them. The playing field needs to be level by law.

Comment: Statement by Carmen Ortiz (Score 1) 430

by tukang (#42613493) Attached to: After Aaron Swartz's Death, the Focus Now Falls On the Prosecutors
http://www.nobomagazine.com/2013/01/16/us-attorney-carmen-ortiz-issues-statement-regarding-death-of-aaron-swartz/#comment-22826

“As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man. I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.

I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.

As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.”

Comment: Statement by Carmen Ortiz (Score 4, Informative) 430

by tukang (#42613451) Attached to: After Aaron Swartz's Death, the Focus Now Falls On the Prosecutors
http://www.nobomagazine.com/2013/01/16/us-attorney-carmen-ortiz-issues-statement-regarding-death-of-aaron-swartz/#comment-22826

“As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man. I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.

I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.

As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.”

+ - Aaron Swartz commits suicide->

Submitted by maijc
maijc writes "Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle, Michael Wolf; Swartz, 26, was indicted in July 2011 by a federal grand jury for allegedly mass downloading documents from the JSTOR online journal archive with the intent to distribute them. He is best know for co-authoring the now widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14 and was one of the three co-owners of the site Reddit."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the US... (Score 1) 322

by tukang (#42397803) Attached to: World's Longest High-Speed Rail Line Opens In China

When you can build a HSR train, not have it subsidized (heavily) by tax payers, have it affordable and convenient (fast) for people to use, THEN and only then will I accept it as an option.

If it's not subsidized by tax payers, it's none of your business, so making additional demands on top of that is silly.

Comment: Re:Won't someone think of the poor corporations! (Score 1) 936

by tukang (#42273863) Attached to: New Hampshire Cops Use Taser On Woman Buying Too Many iPhones
No. If your product costs $1 to produce and people in country A are able to pay $1.50 while people in country B are able to pay $2 then you can charge people in each country accordingly. But when people from country A export to country B you end up losing the $.50 for each product that was exported.

Comment: Re:America's Priorities (Score 1) 327

by tukang (#42229157) Attached to: Nationwide Google Fiber Deployment Would Cost $140 Billion

and will probably end up costing much more than $140B.

According to your own source it's projected to lose $32B-$70B, so I'm not sure where you come up with "much more than $140B".

While the big banks have paid back their loans, the overall program is now projected to lose somewhere between $32 billion to $70 billion, with $109.1 billion owed as of June 30, according to SIGTARP.

The article doesn't take profits (dividends, interest) into account. The tarp amount disbursed was $417B, $345B was repaid and $42B in profits were made leaving a net of $30B. In the end, most of the tarp losses will come from bailing out the automakers - not wall street. http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Also, I would take the article you posted with a grain of salt because the author may be biased by his desire to sell his book.

Comment: Re:America's Priorities (Score 1) 327

by tukang (#42227789) Attached to: Nationwide Google Fiber Deployment Would Cost $140 Billion
The bailouts were loans that were repaid with interest the bailouts were not expenditures. I remember when the bailout first passed people kept on listing the different things the funds could buy i.e. # of schools, # of people fed, etc. but that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between lending someone money and giving it to them.

Well, O.K. I'll compromise with my principles because of EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!

Working...