Re: Just ban it already
I agree, funny money should be banned, if only because of the sheer amount of criminal activity that happens because of it.
18997 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
It licenses designs to an entity that is part of the global corporate structure - therefor it is an internal issue and not something that should avoid tax.
If tax laws were capable of dealing with that, then the loophole would be closed.
The fact that every multinational does it, everyone knows it and no country has done anything about it is a clear sign that there is something wrong with taxation laws.
There is.
There is a very small portion of all people holding a managerial position that are actually capable of managing.
Most of them are just capable of barking orders and complaining when results don't follow.
That is not managing.
Managing includes knowing what you are managing, understanding the constraints and being intelligent enough to imagine ways to improve the situation in a meaningful manner. Planning skills are a good bonus.
That is why there are so few actual Managers.
This is not a new tendancy.
A few decades ago, when I was a newbie accountant before freeing myself from that morass to become a programmer, I was called upon by an acquaintance to evaluate which accountage package would be interesting for said friend's gym club.
To make a long story short, we went to an official presentation of a well-known accounting package of the time, where we spent over 90 minutes listening to how the application could log down to the keystroke of the employees that were supposed to be working.
That was around Y2K.
I'm glad I'm in programming now, because if you come tell me I'm not hitting the keyboard enough in a given amount of time, I will tell you to fuck right off and do the job in my place if you think you can do better.
Such practices are odious and humiliating and leave no place for intelligent thought - they reduce the human being to a robot that is just supposed to peck the keys sufficiently per minute.
No wonder that beancounters are such soulless individuals - because don't tell me that today's accounting suites are not doing it when they have a million times the resources a PC had back in the day.
I am totally in agreement with the idea that privacy protection needs to become a branch of Science and treated in the same open and sharing way.
As much as I like the idea, I will not, however, buy an Alexa, or stop using NoScript and uBlock Origin and thus, I will not participate in giving "the enemy" data just so I can find out how they use it.
I prefer the concept of castle walls and drawbridges. I just hope "the enemy" is not in the process of creating the cannon.
That is a dangerous thing to say, even if it is exact. A brain is a brain. I can't see how black people would have a brain that is structurally different from white people.
Of course, I'm not a doctor in the field, but it's a hard pill to swallow, and it brings us two steps away from "Jewish" brains and "terrorist" brains and then it's eugenics all over again.
They say they have a "common understanding" of how these systems normally work. I say they don't, because they cannot justify the results. It's just "machine says this".
That is because they have no log of how the procedures behave. It's a black box and, when said box spits out results that we find acceptable, we say it's working.
When I am confronted with a piece of code that I don't understand the behavior, the first thing I do is set up a log of its functions. When the function starts, what are its entry parameters, what results it sends back. I do a couple of test runs on different data sets, and then I analyze the log results.
In that way, I can understand how the code gets to its results, then I know what it is I need to modify to obtain the desired output reliably.
They're not doing this for their wonderful AI, so they don't know anything about it except what they expect as a result.
That is no way to manage a project.
There is a third thing to do : make sure that the cleaning personnel understands the Golden Rule : to not unplug anything in order to plug in the vacuum cleaner.
The first time the cleaner makes a mistake, report him to his superiors and forbid him access to company grounds. The second time the cleaner makes the mistake, sue the cleaning company and tear up all contracts with them.
So, Computer Systems Analyst is 57% at risk of being automated ?
Bullshit.
There is no computer that is going to be able to sift through the contradictory declarations, backhanded dealings and outright boordroom dominance battles to produce an application that is in any way going to be able to be accepted and paid for (let's not mention work).
So, physicists create a list of jobs and their automation risk, and find that their profession cannot be automated ?
Color me surprised.
Wrong question.
The right question is : what the heck gives Zuckerberg the right to get this data at all when it was not entered on a Facebook website ?
The answer to that question is, obviously, nothing.
Zuckerberg and all of his managers should be flogged in public, then given a month to mend their ways.
If, 30 days later, the problems persist, another flogging, and so on and so forth until the problems have been solved.
Interesting argument, but I'm pretty sure that the countries buying F-35s are getting the same version that the US military is getting.
When France sells an Exocet to another country, it is selling the same version it has.
Arms dealers cannot sell if it becomes known that they degrade their export versions, their reputation would be trashed.
As far as software is concerned, Lotus Notes once had a degraded version specifically for France because the French government wanted to be sure that it wouldn't have too much trouble with a 128-bit encryption key, so (IIRC) it had it degraded to a 56-bit key (or something along those lines). That is now consigned to the dustbins of History, and every Notes customer has a full-fleged 256-bit AES encryption key for the ID file.
So, I don't think that there are that many "local" vs "export" versions any more.
What there might be is countries not selling a particular bit of kit (for National Security reasons, obviously).
So what is it you actually want this for, taking pics of penguins ?
Honestly, an unmanned ship is good for what if it is not transporting cargo ? It's not like you can task it with conducting scientific surveys on land.
Sure, you could tell it to go to a given "remote point", and then what ? It takes some samples of seawater and a video of the shore ? And ?
The only reason for automating a ship is to make cargo ships that don't need personnel on board. Anything else is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
Okay, I'm ready to respect that - at the condition that the user does not take it as an excuse to assault, insult and harass another user.
Respect of privacy works both ways, and if you do not respect the individual you're talking to, you have no right to expect anonymity.
It is high time that policing of the Internet happens. I would actually accept a scheme where my posts could be anonymous to users, but targetted to law enforcement if that could cut down on the amount of assholes who think they can insult my mother in any way they see fit without consequence.
Free Speech is not an excuse for gratuitious insults.
Well yeah, they're unspecified because the non-compete clauses are illegal.
Remind me why this is a problem ?
If 25%/year of the workforce is going to work for competitors, there is no way Infosys has enough money to drag them all before a judge.
Chrome does indeed have a near monopoly, and the only reason it doesn't have 99% of the market is Safari.
All of the other browsers are in the very low single-digit market share.
But that is not because Google is pushing Chrome, it's because users do not understand - or care - about which browser they actually use.
Funnily enough, they care enough to not use Edge, though, but you can't legislate on that.
Indeed.
I once had the opportunity to go do helpdesk stuff in a warehouse that stored milk products (ice cream, etc). It was cooled to -30°C.
It was in winter, outside temperature was around 0°C, but sunny. I spent all of twenty minutes there.
When I left the place, I had to take my coat off. For a few minutes, I felt like I was on the beach, what with the sun and all.
Of course, 0°C caught up with me pretty quick and I put my coat back on after a few minutes.
Still, I don't think there'll be a lot of helpdesk people poking around racks that are cooled at 4.7°K.
I can't imagine the amount of energy that is going to be needed to cool an entire server farm down to that point.
So, the bottom line is Alibaba is polluting more.
Well, increasing the number of datacenters is going to have that effect. As such, you can apply that argument to every single tech giant today. Amazon, IBM, Borkzilla, they're all doing it. And ?
The bottom line is this : nuclear (fusion when we get it) is the future.
You don't like that idea ? Fine, throw away your smartphones, your IoT shit, your electric car, your washing machine (and dryer), your dishwasher and everything else but your LED lights, your fridge, freezer, TV and sound system.
If we get back to the bare minimum, then yeah, solar, wind and a few coal plant will be enough. But we're not going to do that.
So, while Greenpeace studiously ignores all the coal plants that are being fired up to cope with the fact that its activities for the last fifty years have stifled the only viable solution we have, don't blame datacenters for doing their job.
We need nuclear. Not pressure water reactors that make plutonium so we can get yet more world-destroying nuclear bombs, no. We need Thorium reactors, and fusion reactors when we can get them. Once we have that, two smartphones and an electric car per person will be less of a problem, and datacenters won't be a problem at all.
I seem to recall that a simple white noise generator (check V for Vendetta, among others), aka the go-to spy covert-conversation-protector, is largely enough to confuse a microphone while retaining human ear's capability of listening to one's neighbour.
Have physics changed, or has that always been a red herring ?
It never ceases to astonish me how software vendors (Borkzilla, Oracle, etc) redefine the business environment without for one second asking businesses if that is what they need.
More astonishing is the fact that businesses appear to not mind very much, given the lack of lawsuits over being forced to change when no change was needed from a business point of view.
And we're not talking about mom&pop shops, we're talking about Fortune 1000 companies. How is it that nobody among those CEOs called up Larry and said "Are you done fucking with my business ? I've got money to make and markets to corner, I don't have time to waste lining your wallet" ?
And I'm supposed to believe that these Fortune 1000 CEOs have no clue as to what they got themselves into ?
That is a hard pill to swallow.