bitcartel

"Google vice-president Matt Brittin insisted he stood by evidence he gave last year that all the firm's advertising in Europe was sold through its offices in Ireland.

But in a series of testy exchanges, the committee chairman, Margaret Hodge, said his claims were contradicted by documentation MPs had seen and evidence from a "stream" of whistleblowers.

"It was quite clear from all that documentation that the entire trading process and sales process took place in the UK," she told him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/16/google-deni...

"The committee had also been contacted by a senior salesman who Ms Hodge said was paid a "modest" salary, but three or four times that in commission for sales and for "closing deals".

"This is somebody, a senior salesman, who said he was making sales in the UK. This is a UK sale and should be subject to UK tax," she added.

...Mr Brittin said that although sales staff in the UK were promoting Google and encouraging people to spend money, the transaction would take place in Ireland.

But Ms Hodge replied: "We all accept the billing is in Ireland. If sales activity is taking place in the UK, you are misleading both Parliament and the taxpayers in suggesting that is not happening."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hmrc-are-being...

http://www.combibar.com/products/50g-combibar-gold/

Gold coins (British Sovereigns) were supposedly part of the emergency survival kit given to US and British fighter pilots during the first Iraq war.

Are you sure? Just a few days ago, the President (and leader of the KMT party) said:

No matter where we are, here or abroad, we’ll by no means push for ‘Two Chinas’, ‘One Taiwan, one China’ or ‘Taiwan independence’.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to...

While we often hear about the government in Beijing claiming the island as the sovereign territory of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), we don't hear much about the claims made by the government in Taipei that the mainland is the sovereign territory of the Republic of China (ROC).

Although both sides dispute who is the sole legitimate government of a single China, they both agree that territorially it includes the island of Taiwan. Meanwhile, a recent poll suggests that for people on the ground, opinion is divided.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

[2] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2...

Edit: Privco predicts company will fail soon http://www.privco.com/privcos-2013-private-company-predictio...

This might result in an economic incentive for companies like Path to curb bad behaviour, due to the cost of rewriting EPL code or using inferior code.

Note: The OSI will probably claim the EPL is not an open source license ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") and the FSF will likely say the EPL isn't a free software license because it breaks Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program, for any purpose").

For developers who have undertaken the Oath, the challenge would then be to write the best code, so that it sees widespread adoption. This might potentially make it harder for companies like Path to engage in activities which break the Oath.

Some folk tried to create a pacifist version of the GPL[1].

Others are using the RMPL (RobotGroup-Multiplo-Pacifist-License)[2] - basically a MIT license, but with a restriction that bans military projects.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7511/

[2] http://multiplo.com.ar/soft/Mbq/Minibloq.Lic.v1.0.en.pdf

Maybe it's time to create a Hippocratic Oath for developers to publicly commit to?

A future Path developer could then refuse to implement an unethical "feature" by pointing out that the company had hired them with the full knowledge that the oath had been undertaken.

I don't think the company would pink slip the developer, as they would probably want to avoid any attention being drawn to the unethical "feature" in a tribunal or other legal setting.

Someone else[1] first mentioned that the original poster once worked for CME. Anyone who has been following the LIBOR rigging story can see the irony.

You've now accused several people of defaming the original poster. Did you somehow forget that the topic of discussion is fraud in the financial markets?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5616839

To call CME irrelevant is strange - it's the world’s largest futures exchange! The CME decision many years ago to link futures contracts to LIBOR may have inadvertently kick-started the entire scandal, because banks responsible for fixing LIBOR would also have trading positions, and thus might be tempted to rig things (which is what happened).

> Exchanges don't do "evil finance things".

Ask farmers: "...rampant dairy price rigging that occurs at the CME and hurts farmers and consumers across the U.S. and around the world. In 2008 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) found Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) guilty of price rigging at the CME and levied an unprecedented $12 million fine. Yet, these illegal trading practices continue at the CME." http://familyfarmers.org/?p=731

Or bullion traders: "As the operator of U.S. commodity futures markets; the CME Group has a quasi-regulatory capacity to ensure the markets are operated in a legitimate manner. A primary facet of this responsibility is to set “margin requirements” for trading positions in a manner which enhances market stability. However, for the second time in 24 months we have this market operator engaging in precisely the opposite manner: maliciously rigging margin position requirements in order to increase the current “instability” in precious metals markets – i.e. the downward pressure in prices." http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/2013/04/cme-group-destab...

> finance discussion causes people to enter "good vs evil" mode. Go figure.

Maybe farmers and bullion traders are just bad losers. Maybe brokers don't front-run their customers. Maybe banks who settle lawsuits are innocent. Or maybe Matt Taibbi is right and people have simply had enough of rampant financial fraud that goes unpunished.

"In late 1996, Marcy Engel, then a lawyer for Wall Street heavyweight Salomon Brothers Inc, fired off a warning letter to U.S. regulators: If they approved a Chicago Mercantile Exchange plan to change how a popular futures contract was priced, they would put at risk the integrity of a key interest rate in the global financial system."

"The problem with the CME's plan, as Engel saw it: The banks that set the rates in London daily were also able to take positions in the CME's Eurodollar contract. In her letter to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, she said tethering the futures contract to Libor "might provide an opportunity for manipulation" of the interest rate. A "bank might be tempted to adjust its bids and offers ... to benefit its own positions."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-libor-fixing-or...

Registered developers can already submit code level problems[1], there are official developer forums and bugs can be filed with Radar.

Meanwhile at WWDC, it's a developer scrum to get a 15 minute slot with an engineer and walk him/her through code they've never seen before.

From my experience, engineers do their best but they have always looked somewhat tired, hungry and distracted. All things given, I'm not sure it's the best environment to solve non-trivial problems, although it is nice to put a face to a name.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/technical/submit/

This acquisition doesn't really tell us if Parse, based around a proprietary SDK, had a viable business model or not.

For example, 5,000 tickets at $1,599 each is just under $8 million, which is a drop in the ocean when you consider Apple has around $145 billion in cash.

While shareholders are rewarded with dividends and share buybacks for taking on risk, developers have to pay to take on the risk of building Mac/iOS apps.

$8 million represents %0.000055172 of Apple's cash. That looks to me like a pretty cheap way to throw a party for developers and celebrate all that they've done over the years.

In a nutshell, a company with around $100bn in cash (and equivalents) held offshore[1] would rather raise debt and pay interest on that debt, than repatriate funds to the US and pay corporate income tax.

[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im...

It looks like John Quiggin is basing his views upon his extensive prior research[1] into Bitcoin, and he is not simply jumping onto the bandwagon like so many other economists.

[1] http://johnquiggin.com/?s=bitcoin

The fact that Apple enjoys such fat margins makes them look, at least to some people, that bit more egregious than their competitors.

I don't know if the Pulitzer was deserved or not, but I feel it was a tech story worth covering.

"...for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers."[2]

[1] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/16/apple-pulitzer-ny-tim...

[2] http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Explanatory-Reporting

Apple have managed to keep prices high and thus maximize profit. If Mac manufacturing returned to the US, where Victorian working conditions are banned, it would probably be hard for Apple to keep those fat margins.

A pie-chart from the underlying data[1] shows that the author somehow forgot to mention 21% of the profit from "Other" PC manufacturers.

What isn't in dispute is that Apple charges more than its competitors for what is essentially the same Intel hardware, cobbled together in the same factories in China and elsewhere.

Thus you could make an argument that Apple are the worst when it comes to profiteering from impoverished workers, even though their hands are clean thanks to the wonders of offshore outsourcing.

[1] http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/

> The practical misconception here — and it’s a big one — is the notion that we live in an era of wildly irresponsible money printing, with runaway inflation just around the corner. It’s true that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have greatly expanded their balance sheets — but they’ve done that explicitly as a temporary measure in response to economic crisis... We have huge economic problems, but green pieces of paper are doing fine — and we should let them alone.

The point of the article was not to inform, but to denigrate Bitcoin (and Gold) in the reader's mind. Both Bitcoin and Gold are a means to measuring the value of paper money over time, as well as a potential store of value. Krugman is not going to write anything in support of Bitcoin because he likes the status quo and doesn't want things to change.

Seriously, how long would it have taken him to read up on Bitcoin and learn about the publicly distributed transaction ledger?

> "Unlike credit card transactions, which leave a digital trail, bitcoin transactions are designed to be anonymous and untraceable. When you transfer bitcoins to someone else, it’s as if you handed over a paper bag filled with $100 bills in a dark alley."

Having held interest rates at 0.5% or less, for 18 years now (since 1995) they are also going to conjure up $76 Billion/month of funny money to buy government bonds, on a mission to double the monetary base by $1.4 Trillion within 2 years.

Nobody really knows what the consequences are going to be, but I think one thing is certain: ordinary people are going to find it hard to accept so-called 'austerity measures' and reduced living standards when they pick up a newspaper and read about central bankers creating money out of thin air.

[1] http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/16670172...

If Krugman can't even get the basics of Bitcoin right, I'm certainly not going to buy into his view that the ongoing printing/digitising of funny money - $85 billion/month (US) and $76 billion/month (Japan) - is nothing to worry about. When trillions of dollars have effectively appeared out of thin air, the question needs to be addressed, is this responsible monetary policy or is this Mugabenomics?!