Jokes aside, it's a great way of getting free money from the government without too much reporting to do.
It's fairly unusual for the US, but similar structures exist in countries trying to nurture their startup ecosystem.
693 karma · joined November 25, 2007
It's fairly unusual for the US, but similar structures exist in countries trying to nurture their startup ecosystem.
"Close" does not mean part of the organisation. The founder Norman R. Augustine isn't even a CIA person. It is somewhat similar to a spinned-off company which runs independently but has tight connections (and a contract, in case of In-Q-Tel) with the organization that spinned it off.
* In-Q-Tel (theoretically) may have other contracts and major partnerships.
* In-Q-Tel gets to pick who they invest into; CIA may express interest in a particular area or a company but In-Q-Tel manage their portfolios.
* While In-Q-Tel is non-profit, the profits flow back and the employees may profit from it. Meaning, while part of the funds come from the CIA (taxpayers), part come from the past profits.
More detail to those interested in law: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten....
That was 20 years ago. As much history as Larry Ellison's story in 1970s. Things have changed a lot, and the Silicon Valley today is a poster child for cronyism.
The VCs don't even bother opening "cold emails" (a ridiculous term for something that purports to be an open club). It's a herd of arrogant hipster bros who have no clue what they're doing and try to CYA by "warm introductions" (when their bet fails, they can shift the blame on a 3rd party).
The investment is not completely off-limits (my own story is a testament to that), but it's magnitudes harder to get if you're not connected, and oftentimes you have to pay through the nose to the "people who know people". I also know some rare cases when super-angels answer to complete strangers and subsequently invest, but these are exceptions rather than the rule.
Extremely safe. Even the whiniest people in Singapore (and that's a high bar to clear) will never say that Singapore is unsafe.
Once in a while I see videos of cars not stopping in front of a pedestrian crossing. These posts result in a universal condemnation.
Also note that the UK-style pedestrian crossings include a buffer space next to the actual crossing.
In terms of public transportation, you have the subway (MRT), the light rail (LRT), and the buses. All new, and most of the MRT plus LRT are automated.
Additional aspect is drink-driving. The alcohol is also heavily taxed (almost Demolition Man style: "x is not good for you. What's not good for you is illegal") and the way the government views drugs is clarified in the disembarkation cards saying "Death to drug traffickers" (and they actually mean it), and with the combination of high availability of public transport complemented with cheap taxis / ride-sharing and low availability of intoxicating the DUI is pretty much non-existent.
In the US, the sidewalks are scarce in many places. But that's pretty unique, you don't need to go to Singapore to see streets with normal sidewalks.
* transportation across mountainous terrain - it will actually increase safety
* a few tightly controlled shuttles in gridlocked megalopolises like those in Asia with nightmarish traffic
Basically, taking over the role of the helicopters, but safer and more affordable.
I would, however, prefer fewer smaller bus-sized vehicles.
Living in Singapore, I agree with what you say, but in this future, there will be a lot of whining, too:
There. It's not only in Greece, it's pretty much all over the world except a few places.
I know, the taxi drivers work hard, but the standards before Uber were really abysmal. Why? Because monopoly.
For the young ones and those with poor memory, the overcharging, taking 5 times the normal length "shortcuts", geographically challenged, downright scammy taxi drivers were a norm. In the States, they also expect a tip of 20% for deigning to do their job; one thing I never understood in Boston is how it is physically possible to accumulate so many fumes in a modern car. In places where the taxis are in demand, they wouldn't bother picking you up.
Today the horrible ones still exist, of course, but their number is dwindling.
Does the Chinese government offer incentives for hybrids, EVs, and cleaner public transit? While it may not have a significant short-term effect, it should work in the long term.
They told him that Singapore is different from Hong Kong and has nothing to do with China, did they?
Because if it's about a small(er) country where China has economic influence, than no merger with an APAC company will ever be approved, including companies from countries like Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines.
Also, is Broadcom really a Singaporean company? A quick scan of online resources seems to indicate that it's only incorporated here (likely for tax purposes).
I remember having trying to read a decade-old stash of floppies a few years ago. Too many were unusable. CDs are much better but also relatively unreliable. My USB drives fared much better, even the 64 Mb one with the kangaroo logo still works.
The context is about the vertical extent of the national borders, not the edge of space.
Who says the vertical border ends with the edge of space? Once again, the vertical extent is not defined. Say, tomorrow they come up with a Skylon-like contraption that will be used in civil aviation. That would give a reason to the national governments to redefine the notion of "airspace".
> Anything orbiting multiple times is in space, and nobody will argue.
And how do you know that? Once again, with the example of China, nobody could come up with counterarguments precisely because it's undefined.
Because the Kármán line is not the border.
This is incorrect on several levels (which, of course, did not prevent you from downvoting my post):
* The Outer Space Treaty does not have a definition of the boundary. Here it is, go ahead, look it up: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/oute.... It's hardly a "law" (technically, a treaty is not a law either), more of a set of guidelines and some more concrete restrictions to solve some Cold War issues.
* You are referring to the Kármán line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line) which is commonly referred to as a boundary between the atmosphere and the outer space.
* On the other hand, the United States considers an "astronaut" anyone who has flown over 50 miles (80 km) above the surface.
You already see the discrepancy, don't you?
Most importantly though, both "boundaries" are merely working benchmarks, without any legal authority.
The actual boundaries are determined by national laws. I have no doubt that many, if not most national laws have no such boundaries defined at all. (Heck, if the US doesn't have a solid definition, then who does?)
Finally:
> It's still a categorical "not" as far as international law goes
What is that "international law"? Not the Outer Space Treaty, I presume? If you seriously believe that China openly violated a specific law, I'd be curious to know what law it was.
Generally speaking, "law" is an enforceable set of rules. The "international law" is, sans special cases like war crimes, a misnomer.
Even if we look at something more mundane and reachable like maritime borders, which are more or less firmly defined, they've been disputed a bajillion times (for example, Spratly Islands) or simply ignored or "freely interpreted" (Russia's Arctic exploration).
I maintain, we have a gray zone here.
Then it's not a categorical "not". And what happens when the satellite is not "behaving itself", as you put it?
Then again, where does the border lie? Limit of space? 10 miles? 50 miles?
We have an interesting gray zone here, folks. Where there's a gray zone, there's a lot of money to be made.
I wonder if the perpetrators googled the recipe...
No idea how authentic his story was, but the microwave fake stuck in my memory.
When it comes to the US and global content, there is virtually no difference in the results. Google is much better in the local content and the knowledge graph results though, as well as the maps. Video search is better in Bing.
They are like all-you-can-eat buffets, only for a few people with big appetite. I also don't like their click-and-bait tactics (you sign up for $80, you end up paying $150 in a year).
And that sort of explains everything.
I kept wondering how the info that keep to the Google-verse (search, Gmail) makes it to Facebook. Now I know.
Does it mean that Google collaborates with these data brokers? While it doesn't harm them directly, it seems like a myopic thing to do, arming a company that may undercut your sole major source of income. Yes, I imagine they take it directly from the device, but doesn't Google have control over the Android internals?
Also, I am in somewhat unique position. Being a Microsoft zealot, I still carry a Windows phone (v8.1) with slowly dying services. I almost don't use Facebook yet I still get these too relevant ads, mostly according to what I google on my desktop.
It's mind-boggling for me that a hundred-plus year old house costs that much, frankly.
Is it? It's hearsay, of course, but I was told it's closer to $4K.
I heard of Benford's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Accounting_fra...) that is used to detect accounting fraud.
Are there other known mathematical models to detect fraud?
Simple math. Say, if your venture succeeds, you net a lump sum of, say, $300K - $500K? Plus, in the advanced stages, you'll be paying yourself around $80K - $100K p.a., which falls in the high tax bracket everywhere. The difference between high taxes and low taxes may make a difference between you being able to buy a new home for cash or not.
If you're planning to spend a few years to have fun and immerse in a different culture and believe your venture is likely to fail, sure. If you are there to make money, think again.
Of course, it's not the primary consideration. The primary consideration should be whether there is a market for your products and services.
> Low taxes might seem good, but if the key services are non-existent or corrupt, then your costs of operation will be significantly higher than in a place that has high(er) taxes, but civil society is run efficiently.
That's not necessarily how things work. I live in Singapore now, where the income tax is in single digits and the foreign sources of income are not even taxed, so if you're not an American, you can have your passive income tax-free. The key services are anything but non-existent or corrupt.