Posts by I ain't Spartacus

Re: I for one will miss Google+

The problem was Google wanted G+ to be a Facebook killer. Which it was good enough to be - having a far better UI. But they aren't interested in products that only do OK, they only want big successes or things they still hope will be big. So once it became a useful niche item, it was doomed.

Re: Google+ users

The problem with that Donut joke is that the Google employees weren't using it either. One of their chief marketing dudes once made an announcement on his Facebook page, and when El Reg checked he didn't even have a G+ page. That was back when they were still trying to sell G+, before the last 5 years when they'd given up.

Re: "sunsetting" ... lol!

I remember getting so many downvotes from Google+ fans when I said Google would do this a few years ago. It was obvious that when it failed to get anywhere near Facebook they'd find an excuse to kill it off. I'm surprised it's taken so long.

They launched it with lots of hype, and I actually think it was way better than Facebook too. The circles system was a far better way of controlling your privacy. That's privacy from other users of course, you have none from Google and Facebook. The difference is though that Google have hoovered up the world's personal data and not spaffed it all over the interwebs via a shitty API, unlike FB.

They tried to force everyone with a Gmail account, Android sign-in or Google login to have a G+ account many years ago. And the writing was on the wall from the day they de-linked them again, because users resisted - and I think quite a lot were actively turning it off. When you can't even force a product one users (even one that's better) it's time to give up on it.

That's just because NASA's budget is regularly reviewed. And we didn't know where the boundary of interstellar space was until Voyager 1 reached it. Which is why we were uncertain as to when it had happened. That's science...

Re: Superb reporting and analysis, Register!

I'm sorry. You can ignore that previous post. The Register are of course the most trustworthy of sources. As well as being brilliant, sexy and very generous with buying their readers beer at their lectures.

Trust The Register. The Register is your friend. The Register wants you to be happy.

Re: Bloomberg is hanging way out in the breeze

To be fair to Bloomberg, it's entirely plausible. So as long as they eventually admit they screwed up - and ideally tell us how it happened - they can mostly repair their reputation.

After all, the Sunday Times (and others) survived the Hitler Diaries fiasco. Although people still laugh at them occasionally...

Re: Saturn 5 / Apollo

They also spent over $25bn dollars. And that's 1960/70s dollars. So at current rates we're talking well over $100bn (depending on average inflation rates). I mean it's not improbably huge money, we're talking the same ballpark as the UKs annual healthcare spending - but it's major moolah.

But I don't think calling not doing laughable is at all sensible. The big bang approach of Apollo failed. Thney got to the Moon, and then junked everything. So maybe going more slowly, with cheaper vehicles and more commercial capacity will get us something more long term. The COTS program has got us Falcon, and if it also gets us Dragon 2 and Boeing's capsule, for a few billion each - then that's not too bad.

It seems to me that facilitating long-term habitation of space is still the most important thing NASA should be doing. If we can get commercial crews living in orbit repairing satellites, then we're getting all the brilliant things satellites do cheaper - and we're building up experience and capacity for habitation in space. Plus building up the knowledge and equipment that get us to the Moon, Mars or wherever else we might want to go. It's slower, and more boring, but might end up more effective in the long run.

Plus of course NASA is getting some amazing science done with the Mars rovers and its other science missions. I'd love to see boots on the Moon and Mars, or an asteroid, but it would be depressing if we then declared mission accomplished and gave up on it again afterwards.

Re: A new Dickens novel?

Either that or Kafka.

Re: Partial truth, partial cover up ?

naive,

German intelligence were seemingly often rubbish (though not always). They made some terrible errors. For example Von Paulus' plan to invade Russia called for the destruction of the 400 divisions of the Russian army West of Smolensk. Which they pretty much achieved. Unfortunately Russia had 600 divisions. And the remainder stopped them from taking Moscow.

By 42/43 Most of the planning staff of Army Group Centre (in front of Moscow) were in on various plots to assassinate Hitler. I think Von Stauffenberg was there for a bit, and he and various others shopped their plans around the army high command looking for supporters and a star general to be their figurehead. Nobody would take the job, but nobody ratted them out to the Gestapo. Who were totally unprepared. There must have been around 100 officers who know Von Stauffenberg was going to do it, which is huge for a conspiracy that doesn't leak. One bomb that was placed on Hitler's plane in Ukraine (in 43?) failed (due to cold I think) and the conspirators simply removed it after the flight with nobody being any the wiser.

Several german spies dropped by parachute or sub into England didn't speak fluent english. Which is just rubbish.

Canaris was aware of some of the plots to kill Hitler and several Abwehr officers were actively planning them. Being at work I don't have my copy of Joachim Fest's 'Plotting Hitler's Death' but Google is your friend - see wiki link - and note the 3 chiefs / ex chiefs of the German general staff in on it (Beck, Brauchitsch and Halder).

I think the German intelligence community suffered from groupthink. If Hitler didn't like an idea, then it was very hard to maintain it or prove it. And also of course, if Hitler did believe something then even if you could prove it to be wrong, it was still very hard to do so, or to act on that knowledge.

Re: Cribs from touch

I hadn't realised until recently that the Soviets tried to get cribs on an industrial scale in the 1940s. Guy Burgess was one of the Cambridge spies and at the time was working at the BBC. He lobbied to be given access to non-secret Foreign Office cables, in order for the BBC to be able to better report foreign news. The real reason the KGB wanted this info was to have the actual clear content of enciphered FCO cables, that they could then use as a crib so they could read everything in that cypher. Of course more important messages might be using a different code, but the more you can read of the other guy's messages the better.

At the Beeb he wasn't getting much info. Apart from making good contacts (he was the original producer of the Week in Westminster on Radio 4 - that's been going ever since) - so he was desperate for more. Sadly the Foreign Office gave him a job, before the Beeb got round to sacking him for being drunk too often.

Re: TL;DR

Because then the new submarines will have to fight Godzilla.

Re: 'Proud owner of notepad and calc. What should we do'

Blockchain and Slurping did the conveyancing when I moved house last.

Re: "there's a transition period after March"

Extending the 2 year period just means more time negotiating to nowhere. If the EU try to claim that Northern Ireland must be in the Customs Union, and the rest of the UK outside then no deal like that can fly. That nixes all agreements but a nasty hard Brexit or us staying in the EU or maybe EEA (though even that might not make them happy - Norway have a special customs relationship with Sweden but would it be acceptable for NI?).

More time doesn't fix this. May could give in on Freedom of Movement, but most policians are of the opinion that people voted against this in the referendum. That could be sold, but I think would require re-writing our benefits system from scratch. EU economic projections from a couple of years ago (agreed by the World Bank) had UK poplulation hitting 85 million by 2040. That was due to coincide with our economy surpassing Japan and Germany's with the only question whether India overtake us to 4th largest in the world. But adding a third to the population of the second most densely populated country in Europe in 20 years seems a bit extreme. And likely to cause political ructions...

Re: How does this work?

Well there are already schemes in place around the world to do this. I'd assume you don't want to inspect every lorry/container - so I guess you'd have some sort of "trusted importer" system. Where passed inspections mean you get fewer in future - with some random checks to disincentivise cheating.

It's not like loads of non-compliant Chinese stuff doesn't already get into the EU with CE marks they've put on anyway. Given we have a working legal system, we ought to be able to come up with something better.

Re: Yesterdays news

Well the EU have "junked" the Chequers plan on-and-off for the last 2 months according to the Guardian. I don't think we can take 2 lines from a press conference by Tusk as total evidence of that. Or he'd have come out and said that.

Clearly they're not happy with what May has offered. But the current alternatives are:

1. We stay in the EU. Maybe, assuming that actually is possible after triggering Article 50 - and that in itself is a legal minefield. The Treaty is not specific - so I suspect it would require a unanimous agreement of all member states.

2. We join the EEA. In my opinion this is fine, but it's a bit late to do as we've not been negotiating with the EEA. It also means continuing to allow free movement of labour. Which is not so popular. But could be sold if the alternative is no deal. However, the Labour leadership are currently pro-Brexit (probably - Corbyn has been for their entire political career), and I think most politiicans believe that freedom of movement won't fly.

However if we introduced ID cards and made benefits contributory - so you couldn't claim working tax credits until you'd paid NI for 5 years - then we'd have the tools to make free movement much less disruptive. But that does mean a decade of completely re-writing our benefits system, and a couple of major government IT projects - and both policies would be pretty unpopular.

3. No deal Brexit. Whatever that means. Tusk himself has offered a free trade deal as an option. But the EU currently say they will not allow Northern Ireland to leave the customs union. And have rejected all suggestions of ways round this other than May's Chequers proposal (which they may be about to reject or not who knows?). I would hope that no British government would allow a foreign power to dictate on an internal border between two parts of our country. And the only correct answer to that question is: Fuck off. But there is fudge that can be done on that, because we already have internal agricultural safety inspections and the like - and there's a sea crossing. But any IT tools we don't build for the whole country half-staying in the Customs Union will have to be built for the Northern Irish border anyway.

4. Delay everything and re-negotiate from scratch. I don't see that working - and EU negotiations only ever get agreed at 4am the day after the final summit was due to finish. So I don't think that's a flyer. The problems here are political - and must be solved politically.

Re: Technology that doesn't exist

But surely that depends on what agreement you make? As we don't know what the final trade agreement might be, we can't know if it will be possible to implement it. Also there's a transition period after March, which can be used to get everything in place, once we do know what will be agreed - if anything is agreed. So there's a bit longer than 9 months to do everything. Just not much more...

Anyway there can always be a transition period and then a post-transition period transition to the new technology period, and then a post final transition deadline transition to accommodate the timetable slippage of the post-transition transition period...

The problem with going at a higher point in the solar cycle, is that you risk being hit by a solar flare. If that happens, everyone's dead, and we don't have the shielding to stop it. We risked it for going to the Moon, because it was only a few days out of Earth's magnetic field. 6-8 months is a much higher risk, although admittedly you've still got to be unluck for the flare to go in your direction.

Nosher,

It's not 60% of the radiation that would kill astronauts. It's 60% of the number that we've picked as a lifetime dose.

Which by the way we know is dangerous, but it's a figure that we hope will only cause minor problems like cataracts and joint problems - and hopefully not cancers. With a total astronaut population so small, I'd imagine it's impossible to get any data with decent confidence of avoiding statistical problems.

So no, you're actually wrong. This is proper risk assessment, as anyone not totally reckless with other peoples' lives should do.

The nuclear industry doses are ludicrously low, and there's a good argument to say that if we'd increased the tolerances for nuclear safety just a little bit, we could have made it a lot cheaper and thus saved thousands of lives compared with those we lost mining and burning coal.

But in this case, we can't have astronauts if we try to enforce those kinds of doses, we don't have the technology to get that kind of shielding into orbit - well apart from Project Orion, which has its own radiation issues... So we've gone with a best-guess of what will be relatively safe long-term, but still exposes the astronauts to higher risks than we'd like - but they're willing to live with that.

There's a lot of namby-pamby silliness with health-and-safety. But on the other hand there's a lot of cavalier bollocks that means we kill people we don't need to, because we're not willing to take the time to think about minimising risks. Some of them really easy to minimise too. The construction industry being a good example - where numbers of deaths have plummeted. Take the London Olympics, which were the first to set themselves the goal of building all the venues without any workers dying.

Also if you don't measure the risk, you don't know if you can do something. Until we'd done this calculation we didn't even know if it was possible for the crew to survive even a one-way trip to Mars. To do it without checking that would be stupidly reckless.

Re: Foreign taxes paid are a credit against US taxes

DougS,

I don't know if Apple can count the Irish payment as tax against US corp tax - but highly suspect it. This is because the week Apple were forced to pay it, they announced they were repatriating something like $40bn of off-shore profits to the US. Which basically would cost them zero corporation tax, accounting for that huge payment to Ireland. Which I assume was a pretty cynical piece of political lobbying.

I could be wrong, an it's an utter coincidence. But the fact that when they were forced by complaining shareholders to start paying dividends, they did it by selling bonds while holding $140 billion in cash, gives me pretty good grounds for that suspicion.

Re: "An effective tax rate on dividends of 70%-is"

VAT isn't levied on food, housing, children's clothing, and on energy only at only 5%. I don't know US sales tax rules, but then rates are lower.

Also, if you're going to make that argument, people paid their dividends also have to pay VAT/sales tax.

Companies are exempt from corporation tax on what they re-invest. And that's right and proper.

My complaint is about inefficiency. Apple have over well $100 billion in cash! They've nothing useful to use this for, and are only holding it to avoid tax. They're not an investment company, and don't invest it all that well. If it was paid to the shareholders, they'd either spend it or invest it - both of which would grow the economy. This inefficient use of capital reduces global economic growth.

And yes, taking money out of the company reduces the share price. But that's fine, because that money has gone to the shareholders, so they've lost nothing.

€14.3bn is around the UK's annual contribution to the EU. The £350m a week figure included our rebate, which we obviously don't actually pay (bringing it up to €18bn ish). Our net contribution is something around the €8bn mark.

Isn't that also about half a Chunnel?

Re: Rules are not equal

Santa from Exeter,

The US corporation tax scheme doesn't quite work like that. At least where the US have a dual-tax agreement - in which case you can set local taxes paid off against your US ones - and only pay the difference. Which is broadly what you can do for income tax - it's just terrible when you're in a country without one.

So US corp taxes may be deferred on foreign profits held off-shore. Until those profits are repatriated. Which is why Apple were borrowing money in order to pay dividends and leaving so much cash invested abroad.

Then as soon as the Irish payment was forced, they agreed to repatriate a load off cash to the USA and pay tax on it. Knowing this would be offset against the EU bill - and thus make it a political issue in the ongoing campaign to get US corp taxes reduced.

One of the reasons all this money was sloshing round in Europe was that stupid deferrment rule. If you had to pay the tax anyway, there would be no incentive to do this. But because you can, you stick the money in bonds and hope for a lucky day when you can persuade a US government to give you a one-off tax holiday. Then bring it all back, rinse and repeat.

The correct answer is to stop deferrment, but for the US to lower corporation tax and/or dividend tax - both being high at around 35%. An effective tax rate on dividends of 70%-ish encourages companies to hold inefficient huge piles of cash, rather than spend it or give it back to shareholders to spend. Deferrment made a bad situation worse. Oh and without dividends, companies are incentivised to reward shareholders by boosting stock values, leading to all sorts of horrible short-termism - where regular dividend payments (hopefully) encourage more long-term thinking.

Peter Galbavy,

Well the Irish government decided on a policy of a friendly business environment and low corporation tax rate in order to attract multi-national HQs to boost their economy. And it's broadly done well for their economy. So of course they're going to object to having this affected by the European Commission. They've got to keep looking like a friendly place to base your HQ - otherwise there's always Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Malta etc.

On the other hand, it looks like they did give Apple a special deal, that other multi-nationals didn't get - so you could argue there's no threat to that economic model from this. But I think they've decided it pays to make sure companies know they're maintaining that policy.

I'm sure they can think of lots of nice things to do with €14bn.