1stop

Which to clarify further, their stock market is like 15% of their economy.

China is largely state owned... It's not the same as us markets crashing.

That doesn't make sense:

The groups that would take control:

Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US

Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US

Russia: Already have this tech

China: Already have this tech

USA: Already have this tech

Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?

If taxes and morality have nothing to do with each other, then the answer is simple: Everybody should avoid paying taxes.

But if we borrow a lesson from moral philosophy just to help us with that thought – Descartes universality principle might help us: If everybody (corps, and individuals) avoided tax, would our system still work? Would it be a system that encourages growth (a requirement for capitalist enterprise)? Would our governments revenue system completely dissolve? Thus our governments completely dissolve? Is "Taxes aren't a moral issue" equivalent to "I want pure free market anarchy"?

Great business idea: Create a corporation that represents employees, with offices in every country. It then signs your employment contract, pays you in a 0 income tax territory and does all the same funny money games Apple et al do.

No, if there are no expenses in the UK, then their UK revenue IS ALL profit.

If their US company is wearing all the expenses then they get a tax saving there.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it, and declare expenses in high tax regions and profit in low tax regions. Hence Ireland being popular.

It's not complicated unless you actively start trying to move money around to avoid tax, which is what they all do.

No it doesn't need to be fair or reasonable, if you want access to the market - pay the tax. Simple. If you don't think it's fair or reasonable, don't enter the market.

Kind of like saying "I'll only play monopoly if I don't have to pay anyone elses rent, but you pay mine".

Tax is 100% a moral issue. Just as all laws are. There can be multiple legally correct answers because there are different circumstances, that's why we have courts, and not Judge Dredd.

You are preaching utopian idealism, but a high school ethics assignment of "stealing medicine to save your mum" undoes your "one set of rules to apply to everything" point.

Python is in turn built on C, and likely a bunch of GNU stuff...

... Antibiotics was not chosen out of the blue. We control every part of their life in order to eradicate another life.

I read your full comment, and I don't really care what you care about, my point was to point out that your point was inconsistent, whether you were expressing it as your "own" point of view or a "friend of a friends" I don't care, the point is still inconsistent.

So when you said "hard evidence" you meant: Opinion pieces. And some anecdotal evidence of yourself, which could well fall within the parameters of modern medicine as well, but you've built a narrative that your "belief" changed this?

You don't want people to dismiss it, but you give vague descriptions of what happened, what you did, and what the result was, and why you think they were related.

Seriously, if you wanted to be taken seriously, then engage the topic seriously.

> Bruce Harold Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs. He is a visiting fellow lecturer at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic.

... You've become convinced by this man.

> Surgical oncologist David Gorski has described Lipton as a crank who misunderstands evolutionary biology. He notes that some of Lipton's ideas start out based on research from epigenetics but he twists them into a "woo-sphere".

So could you cite some of the "solid scientific evidence" that you have referred to... because your appeal to authority seems to have failed you... :\

Well by that reasoning, antibiotics are "domination of life"... I bet you the rock formation folk aren't willing to let a festering infection - "just be".

So the difference is purely about aesthetics, which brings us back to why people do bonsai...

... But we are talking about Trees, not tigers. They don't "feel" anything. If they look good and healthy, it means they are good and healthy... because that's all they are.

I'm curious what your reasoning for thinking Russia and China are behind israel on this is? Surely Russia and China have put a lot more resources into this than israel even has...

One approach would be to rewrite each page completely in react. Using the Rails app as an API.

Christmas Cake is a British + Colonies thing (- the US it seems). So you should suspect your memory, because the Chinese/Japanese seem to remember better ;)

Did you really need to make the Chinese are depressing not efficient racial slur?

Pretty sure that's not true. Buddhism meets chinese cultural values namely Daoism, and later Confucianism, and out pops Chan Buddhism, which travels to Japan and becomes Zen.

There is a clear link. How much influence is probably a thesis topic.

Gravity is also an inherent property of mass... It's also a force.

Crazy huh?

Pretty sure inertia IS a force. But I think this point has been laboured enough.

Tomayto...Tomarto.

If that were the case then you could get into orbit by simply going straight up. Why do they go laterally up to 8km/s then? (if not to generate an 'outward' force?).

There are two vectors being added here. One is gravity. The other is a tangental/outward vector. When added together, they form an orbit. Ignore one, and you leave orbit, either by going into space, or smashing into earth. But there are clearly two forces/vectors. And one of them, is having it's direction changed by the other, and thus is acceleration... I don't know what other words I can use to describe it. But I fail to see where I'm wrong :\

... We are talking a tangent on a circle that is changing every second.

So that is a change of velocity, which is acceleration. Outwards is clearly "out" of the circle. The tangent (on the curve) would be a snapshot of that "outward" velocity.

As a said: Tangential velocity is the same as saying outward acceleration. Unless you were referring to just that single "snapshot" in a frozen time scenario.

That "outward" force usually comes from a massive rocket... It is then maintained by the inward force of gravity.

Is "tangential velocity" not just another way of saying "outward acceleration"?

But it does imply a disc, as in a circular thing. SSDs are very square looking discs...

... Did you just make that up?

Slack could still have an awesome UX and be open, people would use it out of choice because it has the best UX.

Are you suggesting banks are creative endeavours? I like the connotation.

The article is echoing a pretty well trodden train of thought on the ultimate conclusion of capitalism. Which no one has seriously been able to refute. Wasted time is a bit harsh.

Catchy one liners "Wealth creation through creativity" might help you sleep at night, but seriously, our creative endeavours have never produced anywhere near the amount of capital the resource sector has... What happens when we either get so efficient at resources that they cost nothing, or we run out of the resource?

That doesn't actually matter to the point at hand. My point was we've got all the surplus value there is to be had.

The fact that we'll probably squander that too, or it will decrease in value, only strengthens the questions... so what do we do after that?

That is still not a taxable event. Even if it's shares and not options.

The shares won't be taxed until they are sold.

I know this, because I've worked in an Australian company and been given shares and they made no difference to my tax liability.

I think you're missing the point. If I could summarise:

Capitalism generates capital. Yay for us, we now have lots of capital. But once you've generated all the capital, and maximised all the profits to the point of driving surplus value to 0. What then?

* Also a major nitpick, most of that billion were brought out of poverty in China in the 1950s at the peak of Maoism/Communism... so you're point is kind ironic, no? The majority of the remainder were also in China during DengXiao ping driven state run capitalism or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"... So even if you weren't missing the point, the point you are making is still very moot.

That's not true. The company gets 10M. The shareholder still received nothing, and thus has no tax liability.

When the shareholder sells their shares they will be taxed.

I don't understand your scenario at all... :\

Or employers who only hire people who live nearby?