|
Hmm.
I'm not playing with trolls here, any more.
Well, not the same trolls, anyway.
If any new ones turn up, I reserve the right to have some fun.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I'm not playing with trolls here, any more.
I asked you 2 questions and you can't answer them and then claim I'm the troll?
OK. Good riddance then. Perhaps troll means something else down under. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Google should pay taxes.
I think government is necessary.
We agree on those two points.
What I find disturbing is that when it comes to American companies it seems to always be a matter of billions in fines. It seems to me that the technology has been around a very long time - perhaps attentive officials should be crafting tax law that addresses the issue long before it becomes this big of an issue.
How is it that Google gets around the rules (the law) when it is the government that can change the rules at any time? How inefficient and inept do politicians have to be in order to get beat at their own game? What? It is taking them two decades to figure out how search engines work? Sheesh.
I should think that if the European people are getting cheated out of good schools because Google is gaming the system then they should burn down the houses of their government ministers for being horribly incompetent boobs. The guys who make the rules are getting burned at their own game? Sound like a bunch of retards to me.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: What I find disturbing is that when it comes to American companies it seems to always be a matter of billions in fines.
You're reading it wrong.
It's billions in back taxes.
MehGerbil wrote: perhaps attentive officials should be crafting tax law that addresses the issue long before it becomes this big of an issue.
The people who make the rules for taxes are paid decent salaries.
The shysters who look for ways of avoiding taxes are paid an absolute fruggin' fortune.
It's pretty obvious who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Don't fall into the trap of blaming the wrong people.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the problem as I see it (at least in the USA):
1: Politicians are mostly professional lawyers and if they're incapable of crafting equitable tax law then they are failing at their job. If you let me design the rules to the game then I'm going to win every time. In my thinking, there is no way the politicians escape blame for this issue.
2: Part of the reason large companies can mis-use tax law is because the politicians make the tax law unnecessarily complex. The loop holes are created by politicians as pay back to supporters - mostly as grift in the system. If they'd craft honest, straight-forward tax law there would be a lot less opportunity for abuse.
3: I don't think it is clear Google actually broke law here - I think the claim is that Google broke the law but the only damning evidence I've seen is that Google has billions of dollars and having money seems to be the only evidence required to bust someone for tax evasion. I don't think making money is a crime.
It really has little impact on me - in the long run this whole thing is one group of powerful millionaires fighting with other powerful millionaires over a great deal of money.
|
|
|
|
|
For point 1: That is certainly not true in the UK. We've had greengrocers, chemists, accountants, etc -- but one of our recent PMs was married to a lawyer. There's no accounting for taste.
For point 2: Nor is that. Tax laws are complex because of the aforementioned overpaid shysters who are always looking for ways to take companies' tax money and put it in their own pockets. The complications in the laws are the fixes, preventing this.
Foe point 3: There's no law against making money, true, but have you looked at how they go about avoiding taxes? That is certainly illegal, but difficult and slow to deal with because it deals with the laws of several countries. By the time the reasonably-salaried people trying to charge the taxes get around one of the obstacles, the grossly-overpaid shysters have found five more obstacles to put in the way.
It has a lot of impact on you:
- It puts money into the hands of people whose only interests are their own, rather than the needs and infrastructure of society -- when was the last time you heard of fat-f*** shysters or search-engine providers paying to build roads or schools (unless the roads led to their own houses or were exclusive for their own children)?
- Why do your children need to get into massive debt to pay for higher education, and how many brilliant minds don't get that education because of the debts it incurs?
- It makes you live in a society that is far more based on criminality than I believe you would prefer.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You make some solid points; however, I'm still going to side with Google.
I went ahead and gave you a +5.
I'm of the opinion I am because in the USA we're running at somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 trillion dollars of debt - a debt that is likely to continue to grow until people finally realize the US dollar is worthless and we all end up in a new great depression.
That debt isn't because Google is criminally mismanaged.
So I get a little bit angry when the innovators in our society - the people who bring me excellent goods and services - get raped by the elected criminal class who do nothing but increase the public debt while generating services of the quality of our public schools.
Do you think if Google were in charge of the public schools they'd be what they are today?
If Google did put out a product that bad we'd go to Microsoft schools - but the fascists that run our government would dare allow for their services to be challenged by competition.
Regarding the net worth of the elected criminal class here is a list of recent Prime Ministers:
David Cameron Net Worth: 50 million
Gordon Brown Net Worth: 15 million
Tony Blair Net Worth: 60 million
John Major: 240+ million
Our Presidents here in the states are much of the same order.
Yes, companies can and do attempt to cheat the system and yes there is a role for good government; however, from where I'm sitting it is just one group of pirates raiding the coffers of another group of pirates. They money they get from Google isn't going to build you a school - it is going to buy whores and booze and they'll borrow money to build you a school and add it to your tax bill.
modified 21-Dec-14 7:55am.
|
|
|
|
|
No mate. It isn't 'old' C++ or any kind of C++.
Printf is C.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I prefer its use to the C++ streams, I find it much easier than all the "<<" crap. This and the fact that I rarely appreciate operator overloading (unless where it makes sense and often it is slightly limited) make me prefer plain old stable known and reliable printf's.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Printf? Never heard of it, printf however...
modified 15-Dec-14 4:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's c or c++, it's not safe :/ that's what matters.
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Safety is overrated: Health and Softy is getting everywhere! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I see why most c programs can easily be hacked :P
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: I see why most c programs can easily be hacked
I would say, that is not a very valid argument. Any program can be easily hacked if the programer doesn't take the needed counter messures
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That is correct, but i think it's an addition to my comment not a rework 
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure - ever tried hacking Ada? You have to break Ada to make it hackable (With unchecked_conversion)!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember Ada.
She used to make a nice cheese and tomato sandwich.
|
|
|
|
|
... and a luvverly cuppa
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Ada Hacked!? I had enough trouble getting to compile 
|
|
|
|
|
All that rigour comes at an expense! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo mama so fat she uses printf
|
|
|
|
|
I don't always printf
but when I do
I print "f"
|
|
|
|
|
Which is a subset of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, sure. But if some geezer is going to go on a MS site and waffle about printf he needs to be accurate. Incidentally, gcc natively does c. Typically I've had to add g++ for c++, so they are distinct.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
