Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:sorry, no (Score 1) 447

Because Apple DOES have a presence here in New Zealand,

You are asserting Apple has a presence merely because it does. You are also asserting that by not having any stores or employees or offices, Apple has a presence. That is illogical at best.

that is how they are able to sell into schools and to Government Departments, they MUST be registered in New Zealand as a business in order to get a Tax ID in order to collect/pay GST (sale taxes).

I don't know: Does Apple sell via 3rd party? Maybe you should find out first.

The volume of sales to schools (above $50,000) a year forces the issue.

Volume doesn't matter if Apple does not sell directly to schools. Again find out first before you make the assertion.

They will have a registered office (be it with an accountant/lawyer).

Then find the registration.

Colgate is registered in NZ as a company, how (or why) Budweiser gets here I don't know. But I DO know Apple is selling direct into New Zealand and must have a tax ID to be able to do so.

My question which you did not answer: Do you force upon Colgate and Budweiser the same provisions you wish to force upon Apple? If no, then you are biased.

Comment Re:sorry, no (Score 1) 447

You didn't answer the question: Apple has no employees, stores, offices, etc in New Zealand. Why should they have to pay any taxes for the things that you mentioned? Why don't you force Budwesier to pay for every time someone buys a Bud in New Zealand or Colgate for every tube of toothpaste? That's what the importer is supposed to do.

Comment Re:sorry, no (Score 1) 447

On that basis I should not have to pay taxes ether because the companies I spend my money with pay taxes and so do their employees.

What are you talking about? Apple uses zero resources of New Zealand as they have no offices, no employees, no stores there. So why should they have to pay any taxes? Every California company you do business with pays California taxes. Every Texas company you do business with pays Texas taxes; however you do not expect them to pay taxes in China unless they had infrastructure in China.

Apple has been collecting and paying GST on goods bought directly from them, if they were overseas they had (until the last 12 months) no obligation to do so.

The article specifically states the taxes go to Australia because that is the arrangement that was made with New Zealand. I'm sure many other corporations in New Zealand have the same structure. Are you going to demand they all pay taxes or are you just biased against Apple?

That indicates Apple has a taxable presence in New Zealand.

That's absurd logic. If I drink Tropicana juice in New Zealand, Tropicana has a taxable presence in New Zealand. If I buy a Bud Light in New Zealand, Budweiser has a taxable presence in New Zealand. By they way, if I extend that logic in reverse, you owe every single country in the world for taxes for everything you have ever bought.

Comment No shit (Score 1) 319

And I dunno about schools these days, or everywhere for that matter, but way back when I was in high school the books usually used something that was quasi-cylindrical like a Robinson or some such. Tended to give you a good picture of whatever they centered it on (which would usually be whatever was being talked about) and squished things near the edges.

I don't recall ever seeing a Mercator projection. Maybe the local maps were, like when it was showing a single country, but of course it doesn't matter a lot at that point as the distortion in a small area isn't that large whatever kind of projection you use.

Comment Re:sorry, no (Score 1) 447

Now Apple comes along, they are "outside" you country, then enjoy ALL the benefits of roads etc etc etc that you do, but they don't pay taxes, so in real terms they are $300,000 better off each year than you, money they can put in the bank for a rainy day.

How is Apple enjoying "ALL" the benefits that you are asserting? Apple has no stores, no employees, no offices, etc. in New Zealand. I'm not even sure that they import their products themselves into New Zealand and rely on other parties to do it. As far as they are concerned they get no benefits from New Zealand. Their partners are the ones that do; they are also the ones who are paying taxes.

Comment Re: Do security researchers trust those laptops? (Score 2) 82

Well no system is perfect and I think you as assuming those systems are never patched ever. From what I know about the contest, the software version is frozen for the contestants so it is not a moving target. In some cases the exploit might already be fixed in the most current version.

Comment That's how these things always go (Score 4, Insightful) 125

Whenever there's a "language popularity" thing online they always do their research by looking at what people are doing online. Either what they are talking about, what they are sharing, etc. Somehow none of them ever consider how horribly skewed this is.

The simplest counterexample to something like this is embedded software. It is unarguable that there's a lot of development of that going on. Everything today gets controlled with a micro-controller or small CPU. Actual custom designed ASICs/circuits are reserved for only a few applications, most things get a more general purpose device and do it in code. Your car, your cable modem, your microwave, your TV, etc all of them run code.

Well guess what? That embedded code isn't done in Javascript or Ruby or any of these other trendy languages. Often as not it is done in C/C++ (and sometimes partially or all assembly). It just isn't the sort of things that gets posted about online. First the code is almost always proprietary, so the project itself isn't going to get posted as it is property of the company that paid to have it written and second it is professionals working in teams doing it, not people who are getting started out or playing around. They are likely to get help internally, not talk about it on the Internet.

So if you want to look at Github to see what is popular on Github, that's cool, but when people try to generalize that to development overall, it is false. To get a feeling for what is really popular in software development you'd have to poll programmers working at a variety of big companies since that's where a lot of the code is being generated.

Comment If the goal is reducing federal spending (Score 1) 647

Then restoration is not the way to go. You can't on the one hand say "We have to cut spending!" and then on the other say "We have to give the military back what we cut!" If you want budget cuts to try and balance the budget ok, but then the military has to be part of it. It is bigger than any other agency, by a large margin. You could eliminate (not cut, completely eliminate) education, transportation, agriculture, HHS, and the DoE and not even come close to the whole military budget.

Another way of looking at the military cuts is restoring it to 1990s levels, percentage wise. In the mid 90s defense spending was about $270 billion which was about 16% of the budget. In 2015 defense spending was about $640 billion (estimates are harder here since congress doesn't include Iraq and Afghanistan costs directly in the budget) which is about 16% of the budget.

Comment That's fine but you can't cheer this budget on (Score 3, Informative) 647

Because it not only doesn't cut the military, ti increases it by $54 billion. That offsets any other cuts. Combined with them wanting big tax cuts for the wealthy (who have the most to tax) that means a higher deficit. If you thing is cutting the debt, these guys are not interested in it. This proposal does nothing in that regard.

Also cutting spending isn't the only way to balance the budget. Increasing income works too, either via raising taxes or increasing the overall economy. Well guess what? Many of the programs being cut are the kind of things that help economic growth. Science is that way. The US is rich and prosperous in no small part because of science and development. When you are on the forefront of new things, you make a lot of money. Cut that, and it cuts future growth.

Comment Well ok there Trumpet (Score 3, Informative) 647

You are either a complete Trump fanboy, or just hopelessly naive because this budget IN NO WAY reduces the debt. Never mind you silly argument of "living off a credit card" (if you don't know how public debt different from revolving debt, go spend some time reading or take ECON 200) let's just focus on the budget:

It includes a massive increase of $54 Billion to the military. This is the military that is already funded 3x the next highest military (in fact if you add #2-8 in spending together you don't equal it), that has spending more than transportation, education, housing, international affairs, science, labour, and agriculture COMBINED. We really need this? We need that much more money for the military?

On top of that they are also set to propose sweeping tax cuts, particularly for the rich.

This is NOT something that'll reduce the debt, not even reduce the rate of increase.

If you want to compare it to a family (which as I said, it doesn't really work like personal finances) this is a parent saying "No I'm sorry kids, we can't afford to get a new water heater even though ours isn't working well, and I can't get you new clothes, we have too much debt. In other news I'm buying myself another new car and cutting my hours to 35 per week!"

You show me a budget that cuts the military like everything else, that at the very least keeps taxes where they are if not increases them, I'll give the "we have to cut the debt" argument credit. However so long as it is "less taxes, more defense spending" you can GTFO with that crap.

Comment Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. (Score 1) 167

With Vista it wasn't just UI changes. Like most new versions of Windows, Vista had problems during the initial release with stability and driver support, etc. However, Vista development was troubled. Most companies didn't release new drivers partly because they didn't think MS would release it on time. Also the drivers infrastructure was so new.

Adding to Vista's problems was the artificially lowering of hardware requirements so that the lowest computer models could advertise that they were Vista Capable* (*meaning they could only run Vista Home Basic only) and more expensive models were Vista Ready. This led to consumer confusion with even a MS VP complaining that he had purchased a "$2,000 email machine" not knowing it could not really run Vista.

Comment Frankly this is what they should have launched 1st (Score 0) 173

The current Ryzens are kinda underwhelming. Not because they are bad chips, but I find myself in a position where they wouldn't be what I'd recommend to most people.

For your average user, they are way overkill. Hell even a quad core is overkill for normal desktop/media consumption/etc usage. They are too expensive, a cheaper Intel i5 or i3 is the way to go.

For gamers, they don't perform as well as Intel's high end in general. Games are multi-threaded these days, but generally have one main thread that is the big limit and the others are much smaller. It is rare to see them max a quad core, much less more than that. For best performance they need high clocks and IPC, and the 7700k does a better job at that for about the same money as the 1700. Only 4 cores, but as I said just doesn't matter to games. Likewise the 7600 or 7600k are in general better and even cheaper.

For audio production Ryzen seems to have higher latency. Maybe this gets resolved later, but right now you need to set your ASIO buffers higher to avoid dropouts with the same project. Also since CPU load isn't generally the limiting factor (CPUs are very fast compared to the needs of audio processing) the extra cores aren't useful unless you do REALLY heavy mixes. So better to go for an Intel CPU and get lower latency for cheaper, or maybe an Intel HEDT CPU for the same price as the 1800X.

Video encoding is the one area they seem to really win at. There the more core equal more performance and you can get 8 for the price Intel sells you 6. So if that's what you are after, then it is a good deal. Not really the most common use.

These though, for the price they should be killer. The 4 cores are likely to at least compete with the 7600 and cost you a good bit less. Could make them a very good contender for gamers, or just general desktop users that want a solid system.

I'll be real interested to see the benchmarks when they come out.

Comment No kidding (Score 2) 143

Google and Apple don't care about you as an individual. To the extent they care about your data, it is as an aggregate, for statistics and optimization and advertising. They aren't interested in trying to get your bank account number and steal your money, for example, the amount of money you have is fuck-all on their scale. They would not be interested in committing a crime with very real consequences for a totally inconsequential amount of money.

However a random thief that steals your smartphone? Ya they are absolutely interested in something like that. They are interested in getting as much money from you in any way they know how. That is how they operate.

While we certainly do need to consider information security and privacy with regards to big companies, the risks and reasons are very different with relation to individuals and it doesn't mean that we just ignore the problems of individuals. They are the bigger issue.

Like at work, we get people who manage to get their accounts compromised all the time. It has never, near as we or the FBI can tell, been a big company doing it. Google has never Phished someone's password and used it to spam, Apple has never used someone's information to get in the employee system and change their direct deposit target. That has always been an individual, or small group of hackers: A criminal (or criminals) dedicated to criminal activity. That is the real risk that our users really face, and the one we need to be far more concerned about than analytics Google gathers on them.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can't make a program without broken egos."