> And it would be really beneficial if people like you and geeks in general were exposed to them.
I'd love to, but they're stupid triggers. I have PTSD from dealing with stupid people all day long. I don't need triggering. It's insensitive and hurtful.
> while its heart is in the right place
One of the most dangerous creatures in human society is the well-meaning idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
You're missing the point. It's not about Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Jew or Pastafarian.
Every one of the major religions has murderous insane extremists who kill in the name of their interpretation of faith. It is unacceptable. The fact that there are many more insane crazy homicidal fucks who happen to be Muslim than there are those who happen to be Christian is as irrelevant as the tu quoque (among any number of other hilarious logical fallacies) tactic often used by apologists when incidents of Islamic terrorism are called out.
Precisely like Christianity six centuries ago, and very much like Christianity in some pockets of the world today.
Absolutely inexcusable in any circumstances.
There are issues with quotas.
Providers have been known to blatantly lie about your bandwidth usage.
It applies arbitrary limits even when non-downloaders need burst traffic on occasion.
It does not credit you for unused bandwidth.
It tends to cost users far in excess of what a provider's actual incremental costs are for adding capacity.
If you pay for bandwidth, you should be able to use it. If a provider advertises a certain amount of bandwidth, they should be capable of, barring exceptional circumstances out of their control (it's a given that you need to plan a bit of excess usage) delivering the contracted services, basta.
On the other hand, a "firm request" doesn't quite sound like a legal threat. Anyone can send a "firm request".
Many people, myself included, are likely to first ask politely, and explain why we're asking, rather than paying money to a lawyer. It often gets much better responses and causes everyone involved much less grief and expense if it's a reasonable request phrased nicely.
You can always go to a lawyer after that if you are really insistent and have a case.
If you're in a position where you are trying to win it, you've already lost. You need to make it too uneconomical to happen in the first place. That's the point.
An armed population is not a war-winner against a modern military. It's a deterrent against a government ever disregarding the will of enough people to spark a civil war. The people advocating armed resistance to the government are a small crackpot minority. If it ever came down to serious fighting, that would mean you'd have pissed off a really large portion of your population. Isn't it better to just avoid that in the first place?
Nobody with half an ounce of common sense is claiming you shouldn't care about both.
The point is that the "health risks" investigation carries the risk that scanners will be authoritatively determined to carry zero risk by an esteemed medical investigation body (chaired by the college roommate's dog's babysitter who is John Pistole's cousin, but don't let that bother you), and thus the entire case against scanners will be shot down in the press when there is still a real-but-difficult-to-quantify objection against the things on privacy grounds.
That is the problem.
There is no problem with disagreeing with a law and even fighting it - as long as you're prepared to put up with the consequences of disobeying it.
Is he breaking the law?
No.
“For Eric Schmidt to say that he is ‘proud’ of his company’s approach to paying tax is arrogant, out of touch and an insult to his customers here in the UK,” she said.
Maybe, but that's a subjective judgment. Tax law is not subjective. There is a very good reason for that.
Google should recognise its obligations to countries like the UK from which it derives such huge benefits, and pay proper corporation tax on the profits it makes from economic activity here. It should be ashamed, not proud, to do anything less. ”
It pays proper corporation tax. Proper corporation tax is what is legally required. If you don't like the amount of tax Google is paying, close the fucking tax loopholes that allow it to get away with less.
As a private citizen who does not have the financial means to do a double Irish, blind trust, or whatever-the-hell-else legal mechanisms I could use to legally optimize my taxes, does it gall me that Google is paying such low taxes? Of course it does. I find the whole system loathsome and unfair. Do I want to see the laws allowing them to do this changed? Absolutely.
Do I want to see them subjected to arbitrarily made up rules that are contrary to what the written law says? Fuck no. If someone does not understand why this would be a bad idea, it's not really worth arguing.
Hey, I'm fine with it, because it means that I'm no longer a pirate. All my movies, music, games, everything, will be paid already.
Right?
...can someone please remind me how much of my money is being wasted on this shit?
But think about it this way - a big part of the reason for sharing such information and making it commonly accessible is to enable the automation of pattern-finding.
This is tough to do with patient records scattered through fifty thousand different hospital databases. With those 130,000 cases online, you're going to start seeing commonalities in various reactions to treatments, statistics, etc. which in turn will make it much easier for researchers to begin understanding what combinations of cures/treatments may or may not work - leaving the "weird" ones that don't fit into any patterns to the Jimmy Lins.
That'd be hilarious. I can already imagine the business justification: "we need to install a heater so we can power the cooler because we heat too much when it's cold outside."
(If you're an employee, tell your employer that, in order to optimize your respective tax bills, you'd like to work as a consultant.) Pay yourself a reasonable salary through the local subsidiary, and then funnel the remaining profits back to yourself as dividends through the tax haven company. This is all legal on paper as long as you dutifully declare everything properly.
Actually, I live in Switzerland (and have worked all over Europe in the past decade and a half).
This is very common. You set up an LLC/GmbH/SARL/whatever in a place that has advantageous tax rates. You pay the tax that you legally owe on time worked in the country where your job is, you set up your offices and residence elsewhere as needed, deduct the maximum legally allowable for business expenses, etc. etc. etc.
It's usually pretty cleanly defined. Tax authorities may not like it, but they are as obliged to follow the law as you or I (I once took a massive deduction because I commuted to work by car, and simply added up the distance with the rates published on their own website. They did not like it, but I was able to point them to _their own rules_, and that was that...)
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
