Why should we (I am a European too) accept these banks? Because we have for ages, since long before there was an EU. These banks may have to meet some requirements first, they may have to apply for banking licenses in the EU, but that's hardly different from the time before the EU either. Those bankers are crapping their paints, but for different reasons. As for the rest, there's no reason why the EU and the UK can't work out normal trade agreements, to mutual benefit.

"The EU" doesn't want to punish the UK, a few eurocrats in Brussels and guys like Drunker might want to in order to scare others into staying, but a couple of leaders like Merkel and Hollande have already sat them down hard.

Reminds me of the story of iRobot (or some other robot company). They wanted to make an industrial floor cleaning robot, but cleaning floors involves 3 passes (pouring wax, buffing, and something else). Not wanting to build 3 robots, they came up with one that did all 3 operations in one pass. When they showed off the robot at a trade show, people were much impressed. And then asked "could you take out that computer, and mount a handle so the janitor can push the machine around?". Turns out building supervisors didn't want robots, they wanted a janitor to clean and at the same time keep an eye on the place and make small repairs.

Read the short story "Manna" (free book). In the story, most countries evolve into a somewhat dystopian jobless society. People get a minimum income, most of that being provided in kind: government housing with free TV and a cafeteria serving palatable food. But no hopes of ever doing better, no opportunities for other activities of leisure, and after a while you can imagine those benefits will get cut: less meal choices, singles will now have to share their room. And you are not allowed to leave the compound anymore either.

It all comes down to the question Marx posed: who owns the means of production? Who owns the robots? That may well gravitate to private owners, while governments increasingly struggle to balance their budget and provide for a growing number of unemployed, while income from natural resources is running out fast. And then what? You'd kind of hope the megacorps will go under with us since they'd have no one left to sell to. But even if we end up owning the robots collectively, you're still likely to end up with a centrally planned, communist society, nominally designed for efficiency rather than comfort, like the world in "This Perfect Day"

I swear I read that as "Creator calls out YouTube for demonising videos" the first time.

True, you shouldn't go in with the expectation of easy riches, just make sure you get your bit when it does hit. About those options, here's a decent article on the subject. In a nutshell: make sure your options vest early and permanently (the latter is what screwed those FB people IIRC). Check the terms, and negotiate: in contrast to big companies where HR have nailed down renumeration and benefits to the last decimal in a rule book, startups have considerable leeway to meet your terms, especially if what you ask for doesn't translate into an immediate cash outlay for them.

I disagree. If you want to be paid well and on the dot, go work for a regular company. Working for a startup is a different proposition: it's stress, long hours, and a crap salary (some pay top dollar to attract top talent, but only if they are exceptionally well funded, and you do need to be a recognized top talent to get in. Most pay crap). It's not everyone's cup of tea, but some people thrive in such an environment. I've done it and it's great, but very demanding. I'd do it again but I'll probably be more selective next time round.

In a startup, what you're working towards with your co-workers is a big payday. And when that day arrives you do want your slice. If working for a startup is your thing, make sure you get the pay you need to get by, but do get those stock options. And make sure those options cannot easily be taken away. They often can, like so many potential multimillionaires at FaceBook found out when the Zuck fired them just before heir options vested.

I wouldn't worry: it's not the American taxpayer but Apple customers footing this bill. And they already charge more in Europe (taking VAT into account).
Anyway, if this ends up with Ireland receiving €11G and TTIP tanking as a result, I'd say that is an *awesome* win for Europe. As it stands, TTIP is already on shaky ground as more European countries get pissed of at the one-sided nature of the treaty and the fact that the USA is willing to concede only minor points. There's only a few people and companies that stand to gain from TTIP, the rest already made it abundantly clear they don't want that crap.

The real question is: what does the letter of the law say about tax deals being ruled unlawful? Tax law can be very funny like that, and what seems fair and logical in normal dealings with the government can be stood on its head as soon as taxes are involved.

"Call him? You really want to call the general to confirm these orders? At this late hour? Sure, go ahead. Here, use my phone, it's your neck". I thought that only worked in movies...

But seriously, in a large company like that I wouldn't expect such large transactions (or even small ones) to happen without prior authorization in the ERP system. The finance guys won't transfer even a handful of euros without having the beneficiary in the system or if there is no PO and invoice, or transfer order (or whatever these things are called). Email by itself should not be considered sufficient authorization, ever, certainly not an email that also contains the request and bank details.

They are completely different things. Suicide is a victimless crime (no, I'm not going to count the bereaved as a wronged party), homicide is not. Suicide is also legal in most countries, even if knowingly providing the means to commit suicide isn't. Lumping suicides and homicides together as "Americans killing Americans with guns" is semantically correct, but it's deceitful. Having said that, I do agree that the terrorist threat has been blown out of proportion.

They won't take away phones, but many countries have, or are considering, requiring customers to provide ID and be registered when buying prepaid SIMs. Which works great because no criminal or terrorist ever carries fake ID, and they never have any friends who can buy the SIMs for them.

I was pleasantly surprised at the way Mexico handled this. They started registering prepaid SIMs but stopped doing that after a few years, because studies showed that it had not helped prevent or prosecute any crime. Isn't that the way any such measures should be handled? Weigh the downsides against expected results, then actually evaluate those outcomes, and repeal the measure if it doesn't deliver.

The real question is: what does the law say about how illegal agreements like these should be handled? In some EU countries at least, if an agreement between government and a private person or company is deemed illegal, it cannot be annulled just like that; the government is supposed to be a trustworthy partner and cannot strike a deal then simply declare it illegal. In some cases the agreement itself will be considered void, but the affected person or company will not be on the hook for the whole amount owed, or will be compensated for incurred costs (like when a building permit that shouldn't have been issued is rescinded when building has already started). In other cases, the agreement stands up to the date of the ruling and is only void going forward (so no back taxes would be owed).

They didn't spent $74M on the orbiter but on the entire mission. Let that sink in... Part of that was achieved by using cheap stuff developed in-house instead of spending a lot of money buying abroad.

They already put a satellite in Mars orbit... and only spent $74 million putting it there. Who knows, they might go for a rover next.