|
|
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 20:39:49 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: you are pirating it. Not necessarily. If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a licence. That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it" nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct. nope. i explained that. the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. Is he even using it? he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download it. That applies to most people. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
"Eric Stevens" wrote
| the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. | | Is he even using it? | | he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never | bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download | it. | | That applies to most people. Why are so many people always so quick to go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating" software? It's not clear what the OP did. It's not relevant to his question. And the CS2 download was, indeed, legal for a period of time. I saw the page when they posted it. They included a legal ditty that said, specifically, that it was only legal to use the software if it was obtained directly from Adobe. That was it. They gave it away. They said they were giving it away. They gave away a working key along with it. In any retail store, even if it were a mistake, the store would be expected to honor such an offer. I'm not convinced it was a mistake. Companies don't "mistakenly" put together a web site and free software offer. They also claimed it was about a problem with activation servers. It's their responsibility to operate the servers. If they won't then they should give it away. The weird way it all went down may have been an attempt to sidestep that issue. The likes of Adobe and MS surely don't want a court case about their responsibilities involved with activation-crippled software. On the other hand, they'd like to keep milking software they no longer support. (When MS started "product activation" with XP they put out the word that when XP went unsupported they'd "probably" issue a universal key. But XP turned out to be popular. MS still don't dare to give it away, lest it have a resurgence.) But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2. Period. And no one needs to take my word for it. Look it up. The articles from the time all say basically the same thing: Adobe gave it away. Downloads were extremely numerous. Adobe then backtracked and said, "Oh. We didn't mean it was free." Then they put up a page to require getting a "membership" in order to download. It all looks like a planned marketing ploy to me. No one using it professionally would have bothered downloading CS2 at that point. But it *could* be used as a free trial to get new customers hooked -- which is a common strategy. And if Adobe wanted to do such a marketing campaign, how else could they do it? So was it marketing? Was it a legal step to get out of running activation servers? Who knows? But I don't see the logic in villifying someone who walked past a supermarket, saw a table full of steaks with a sign that said, "Free. Help Yourself.", and then took some steaks. If the supermarket meant they were free only to people who had already paid for them then the sign should have said that. And there should have been a clerk at the table. It seems to be a quirk of the American psyche that we love a witch hunt. The mob wants to decide who's the evil one and pass harsh judgement, so we can be sure we're safe. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/03/2018 07:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote | the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. | | Is he even using it? | | he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never | bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download | it. | | That applies to most people. Why are so many people always so quick to go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating" software? It's not clear what the OP did. It's not relevant to his question. And the CS2 download was, indeed, legal for a period of time. I saw the page when they posted it. They included a legal ditty that said, specifically, that it was only legal to use the software if it was obtained directly from Adobe. That was it. But, the link provided in this thread was not directly from Adobe. Therefore, is downloading from the site mentioned in this thread legal? snip But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2. Period. Not without the restriction you show. snip It seems to be a quirk of the American psyche that we love a witch hunt. The mob wants to decide who's the evil one and pass harsh judgement, so we can be sure we're safe. Or, some people respect the intellectual property of the developers more. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Mon, 02 Apr 2018 16:32:57 -0400, schrieb nospam:
nonsense. not only can it be done on a mac, but more efficiently with fewer steps than your cluster**** solution *and* produce higher quality results. it can even be done on an ipad or iphone. Again, you just guess, nopspam. And, again, you just guessed wrong. We're printing a sign, for heavens sake, to vinyl cuts, for heaven's sake. Get a grip on reality. Jesus. You are always wrong on everything. You have no grip on reality. A 12x18 text sign with borders doesn't need fancy graphics for heaven's sake. So you yet again show you have zero technical competency whatsoever. Vector. Raster. Graphics won't make a bit of difference in this application. What matters is that a score of people have to edit it, without learning any new tools, and the single file that they edit has to have the fonts embedded since the main edit will be text for heaven's sake. And the Mac just can't do that. You just guess. And you guessed wrong. Again. The monkey and you would be a fair competition to see who finds the bananas. And the monkey might just beat you, your record on correct facts is that dismal. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:05:52 -0700, schrieb sms:
The post says that he is creating the sign in Powerpoint and that it needs to read by Illustrator in the Mac. I need to dig out my copy of Illustrator which I bought many years ago at a previous job. I probably used it twice, but I needed to have it for a specific task. It probably won't even work with WIndows 10. There are some programs that I've found hard to believe they are still being used. Corel Draw is the format that many laser cutters require. I only speak fact. I used the software to learn how it works with respect to fonts. The software phones home so Adobe knows whatever they want to know. Will I ever use the software ever again? Probably not, why would I? I don't need it. I don't want it. I don't even like it (AI can't even understand embedded fonts for heaven's sake.) I have a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat & Distiller. Do I ever use that? I don't even bother installing it anymore - as it's old crap that doesn't do anything that freeware can't do. What does the AI software do? I don't even know. I think it helps you create vector graphics. Do I ever create vector graphics? No. Do I care to create vector graphics? No. Hence, here are three facts. 1. I used the software to test our process with respect to font embedding. 2. The software phones home so Adobe knows I did that & that's fine. 3. The software sucks at embedding fonts (it can't do it). 4. So I have no need for the software whatsoever. Note: Our process remains as it was before the test. The test was only to get the shop to start telling the truth. It's sort of like how we have to deal with nospam, or any defense lawyer. They never tell the truth until you show them the truth. Summary: a. The software sucks for the purpose we wanted it for. b. Hence, it's useless. c. It phones home so Adobe knows everything. d. I will likely never use it ever again. e. But I will also likely leave it on my system as it doesn't break anything. What is likely to happen is that it will just sit there forever, unused, since it serves no useful purpose for me. When I rebuild the computer, which I do every year or every half year, on average, it won't even go back on as it would be wasted effort. Will I delete it? I could. But there's no technical reason to delete it. If Adobe wants me, they know me. I already have licenses from them anyway that have my name and address on them for other products. The fact is that it was used to test whether AI handled fonts, and it just sucks at handling fonts (for our purpose). We proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is that a licensing issue. Nope. Is that licensing issue relevant to the *technical* topic of this thread? Nope. Q: Why then is the licensing an issue in this technical thread about fonts? A: Because the Apple Bigots have no technical competency so they quibble about off-topic issues that are not in the least relevant to the technical topic. In short, the Apple posters don't have any technical competency (they gravitated to the Apple product for that reason alone) so they can't answer the technical question, so, they make up their own tangential arguments to argue about. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:27:54 -0400, schrieb Mayayana:
They gave it away. They said they were giving it away. They gave away a working key along with it. Hi Mayayana, Some salient points about this completely-off-topic licensing issue. 1. *This licensing issue is irrelevant* to the technical topic of this thread (where you'll note that, like any good defense lawyer trying to muddle the issue, the classic Apple posters are the ones bringing up the non-technical tangents because they don't have competency on the technical question.) 2. Adobe knows all about that Windows key which is posted on the techspot web site in public by a seemingly reputable web site. If Adobe wanted to kill it, all it would take is a letter from their lawyer and a call to the local authorities where that web site is hosted. 3. The software phones home so, if Adobe cared, they'd send a letter to my ISP. 4. The test is over. The software sucks at embedding fonts (it just can't do it). We will not modify our process one but since the software gives us zero advantage to improve the process as a PDF with embedded fonts is all we care about. Q: So why did we use the software in the first place? A: To test whether the shop was telling us the truth, and they weren't telling us the truth (they were being like nospam always is). Q: Will we use the software? A: Nope. It doesn't embed fonts. It's no better than PDF for our purposes. Q: Does the licensing question bear any relevance to the technical question? A: Nope. It's only the Apple Apologists who bring up this issue because they have no technical competence to answer the technical question. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Bananas are readily available but they are not generally free. That is why it can be misleading to say they are freely available. bananas are not software They are nouns. good point. all nouns are distributed in the same way software is. another hour or so and my groceries should be finished downloading. The sentence under discussion says nothing about downloading. the issue is pirating cs2, no matter how hard you try to twist it into something else. So too is 'Adobe illustrator'. My statement was concerned with the use/misuse of the English language. as well it should, since you greatly misused it. This from the guy who thinks that parsing applies only to software. where do i get a hardware parser? you are pirating it. Not necessarily. yes necessarily. Even if he already has a license? he doesn't and you know it. I've ploughed through much of his junk and found nothing to suggest that he has a copy of Illustrator, exactly the point. So we don't know either way. you might not, but the rest of us certainly know. let alone that he has pirated it. since it's clear that he never bought cs2, downloading it is pirating it. Has he downloaded it? duh. he also has admitted to pirating a wide variety of other stuff, so this is not any sort of surprise. As far as I can tell the discussion is in the general case, in which case neither the presence or absence of a license can be assumed. assumed is the wrong word. no assumptions are necessary. Where is your evidence? his numerous posts in this thread and others. based on what he's written in this thread and countless others, it's *quite* clear what he's doing. The clarity is an inference. not to those who pay attention. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: you are pirating it. Not necessarily. If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a licence. That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it" nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct. nope. i explained that. the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. Is he even using it? he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download it. That applies to most people. and? did you have a point? no. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. | | Is he even using it? | | he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never | bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download | it. | | That applies to most people. Why are so many people always so quick to go on a witch hunt when it comes to "pirating" software? because piracy is illegal. It's not clear what the OP did. oh yes it very definitely is clear. It's not relevant to his question. yes it is. And the CS2 download was, indeed, legal for a period of time. it was never legal, except for those who *already* *owned* *it*. I saw the page when they posted it. They included a legal ditty that said, specifically, that it was only legal to use the software if it was obtained directly from Adobe. That was it. nope. what it said was it was for existing cs2 customers. They gave it away. They said they were giving it away. They gave away a working key along with it. it was only for those who originally *bought* cs2. it was *not* worldwide distribution to everyone. In any retail store, even if it were a mistake, the store would be expected to honor such an offer. I'm not convinced it was a mistake. Companies don't "mistakenly" put together a web site and free software offer. the only mistake is your understanding. there was *never* a free software offer. They also claimed it was about a problem with activation servers. It's their responsibility to operate the servers. If they won't then they should give it away. there was no problem with the activation servers. what they did was turn them off because there were no longer new customers buying a nearly decade old piece of software that no longer worked on newer systems, therefore they could not justify keeping them running. they created a version for *existing* customers (not new ones) so that they could reinstall it on their existing hardware. The weird way it all went down may have been an attempt to sidestep that issue. The likes of Adobe and MS surely don't want a court case about their responsibilities involved with activation-crippled software. On the other hand, they'd like to keep milking software they no longer support. nonsense. (When MS started "product activation" with XP they put out the word that when XP went unsupported they'd "probably" issue a universal key. But XP turned out to be popular. MS still don't dare to give it away, lest it have a resurgence.) xp is no longer supported. microsoft did offer a free win10 upgrade. But all that's beside the point. Adobe gave away CS2. Period. no they didn't. period. And no one needs to take my word for it. don't worry, nobody is foolish enough to do that. Look it up. The articles from the time all say basically the same thing: Adobe gave it away. you mean articles like these? https://www.forbes.com/sites/adriank.../07/download-a dobe-cs2-applications-for-free/ Adobe scientist Dov Isaacs clarifies: On behalf of Adobe Systems Incorporated ... You have heard wrong! Adobe is absolutely not providing free copies of CS2! What is true is that Adobe is terminating the activation servers for CS2 and that for existing licensed users of CS2 who need to reinstall their software, copies of CS2 that don't require activation but do require valid serial numbers are available. (Special serial numbers are provided on the page for each product download.) See http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1114930. Downloads were extremely numerous. Adobe then backtracked and said, "Oh. We didn't mean it was free." Then they put up a page to require getting a "membership" in order to download. that's not what happened. It all looks like a planned marketing ploy to me. it wasn't. No one using it professionally would have bothered downloading CS2 at that point. only because cs2 was at the time nearly a decade old, 5 versions outdated and didn't work properly (or at all) on (then) current systems. professionals would have been using the current version, which at the time was cs6 or creative cloud. But it *could* be used as a free trial to get new customers hooked -- which is a common strategy. And if Adobe wanted to do such a marketing campaign, how else could they do it? there is no point in offering an obsolete version as a trial version, one which won't even run properly (or at all). adobe *does* offer trial versions of *currently* shipping software. So was it marketing? Was it a legal step to get out of running activation servers? Who knows? many people know. just not you. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Ragnusen Ultred
wrote: Vector. Raster. Graphics won't make a bit of difference in this application. yes it does. What matters is that a score of people have to edit it, without learning any new tools, and the single file that they edit has to have the fonts embedded since the main edit will be text for heaven's sake. And the Mac just can't do that. oh yes it can. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | But, the link provided in this thread was not directly from Adobe. | | Therefore, is downloading from the site mentioned in this thread legal? I wouldn't. They're no longer giving it away, technically. I also didn't try the download link, so I don't know whether it goes to Adobe. I also didn't see where the OP said he got his copy from there. How do we know he didn't use the legal download? Or sign up at Adobe? there is no legal download for cs2 except for those who already own cs2 nor was there ever such a download. period. full stop. | It seems to be a quirk of the American psyche that | we love a witch hunt. The mob wants to decide who's | the evil one and pass harsh judgement, so we can be | sure we're safe. | | | Or, some people respect the intellectual property of the developers more. You think so? I'm a developer myself. I've written shareware for about 19 years and used to make a decent side income from it during the PC craze of 2000-ish. Very, very, very, very few people pay for software if they don't have to. When I suggested a donation I got a handful of nice letters with checks (8 to be exact), despite 10s of thousands of downloads. When I started charging I got more payments, but many, many more people were using "cracks". that could be because your software is garbage. people are happy to pay for quality products and support the developers, however, they don't like to pay for crap. Companies like Microsoft, Apple and Adobe are all grossly overcharging because they've managed to create monoply situations and they have businesses over a barrel. How do I know they're overcharging? Because they're among the most profitable companies in the world and all they do is make software. When you sell a bestseller book it goes to paperback and gets cheaper, not more expensive. nonsense. being profitable does not mean they're overcharging. they make stuff a lot of people want to buy. if they were actually overcharging, sales would be weak to nonexistent and they would have to slash prices to move dead product. Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. holding money offshore is *not* tax evasion and many companies do it. it's completely *legal*. keep in mind that more than half of apple's revenue is from *outside* the usa. also keep in mind that apple is the only major company (so far) to repatriate the money under the new tax code. It's only their offshore tax evasion, not their total profits. And you feel sorry for them? Of course, Apple do claim to have invented round corners. Should I send them a royalty when I use sandpaper? Do you suppose poor Timmy Cook is going hungry because he loves his Apple flock so much that he lets them abuse him? Somehow I'm just not convinced of that, despite Cook's histrionics in the media. i see you misunderstand yet another patent. Sharing software was popular years ago, before online activation, simply because it was so expensive. in other words, piracy. Someone paid $300 for Windows, $600 for Photoshop, maybe $600 for MS Office. The prices are crazy. windows is bundled with computers so people never paid $300 and the home version was less anyway. photoshop is professional level software and pays for itself very quickly. the consumer version of photoshop is under $100. I can buy a Windows PC today for $300. a ****ty one, sure. a decent windows pc suitable for photoshop, video editing, cad, etc., will cost a lot more than $300. high end pcs are more than 10x that price. in the $300 price range, a chromebook or an ipad is a *much* better choice. Yet it costs the same to buy a Pro copy of Windows. (The minimum fee to get a copy I can move to my next computer.) So naturally people would share their disks. Was that wrong? If so then why isn't exploiting a monopoly market wrong? two very, very different things. (Bill Gates famously tried to get his buddy Warren Buffett to invest in MS, explaining that they get a "Windows tax" on every PC sold. A can't-lose proposition. Humorously, apple is now one of Buffet's favorites.) buffet likes apple because microsoft dropped the ball and apple is running with it. microsoft botched windows 8, windows phone was a complete failure, ballmer was fired, sinofsky is gone and now myerson is gone. Meanwhile, this is not a morality court. The topic is about transferring fonts. actually it's about making a street sign in the most convoluted method possible, using pirated software and likely pirated fonts. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 03/04/2018 15:57, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana wrote: snip Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. -- Cheers, Rob |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
On Apr 3, 2018, RJH wrote
(in article ): On 03/04/2018 15:57, nospam wrote: In , Mayayana wrote: snip Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. Trump set the trend, and almost everybody, including us peons, and Apple pay more taxes that he does. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , RJH wrote:
Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period. apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do so. judge learned hand, http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h tml Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. you would fail incredibly hard at such an argument. apple might not pay what *you* think they should but that's very different. *you* didn't write the tax code, so what *you* think apple or any other company should pay is completely irrelevant. and why single out apple? amazon, who paid nothing compared to the ~11b that apple paid in fy'17, along with microsoft, facebook, google, cisco and the rest, all use the tax code to their advantage. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...2017-but-paid- no-federal-taxes Jeff Bezos¹ sprawling e-commerce giant Amazon reportedly raked in more than $5.6 billion in U.S. profits in 2017, but despite that, the company essentially paid $0 in federal income taxes. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
"Lewis" wrote
| That is a lie, they pay ever dollar they are required to, just like | everyone else. | If you want to split hairs, yes. No one's been arrested. They avoid bringing it into the country as a way of evading taxes. I think you know that. If you don't it's easy enough to find the ugly details. Though I think I read they were going to bring some back because of the big corporate tax break. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | That is a lie, they pay ever dollar they are required to, just like | everyone else. | If you want to split hairs, yes. No one's been arrested. nor will anyone be arrested. everything is completely *legal*. They avoid bringing it into the country as a way of evading taxes. nope. I think you know that. If you don't it's easy enough to find the ugly details. yes it is easy to find the details, except they're not what you claim them to be. no surprise there. they never are. Though I think I read they were going to bring some back because of the big corporate tax break. they are in the process of doing just that. more details will be announced in 4 weeks. other companies with foreign assets, including microsoft, have *not* done that, at least not yet. now who is the bad guy? |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 03/04/2018 19:53, nospam wrote:
In article , RJH wrote: Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period. They avoid paying tax. Period. Why did they shift off-shoring tax from Ireland to Jersey? Partly to save face. But to save face over avoiding $14B in tax. By avoiding it in a more obscure way. apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do so. Nonsense. There is no law that says a company cannot pay tax at a full and fair local rate. judge learned hand, http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h tml Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) May? Why not must, if it's 'the law' ? Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion Tax *is* a moral construct. There is nothing intrinsic or innate about tax, and law is a feeble attempt to uphold an ethical position - that tax is paid on a proportion of profit (in this case). And using a legal case to underpin a legal argument is hardly the point at issue. Avoidance is legal. Avoidance is also about moral and ethical issues. Rationality, if you like. I'd happily revise my opinion in the light of a coherent moral or ethical position on Apple's behaviour. I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. you would fail incredibly hard at such an argument. Just internet search "apple tax avoidance" (in quotes if you want - 30k+ hits). It really isn't my argument. apple might not pay what *you* think they should but that's very different. Again, it's not just me. I may well be in a minority, but I don't think I am. *you* didn't write the tax code, so what *you* think apple or any other company should pay is completely irrelevant. and why single out apple? amazon, who paid nothing compared to the ~11b that apple paid in fy'17, along with microsoft, facebook, google, cisco and the rest, all use the tax code to their advantage. Agreed. They all avoid tax. I'm singling out Apple because they're the object of discussion. I don't consider them to be the worst by a long chalk. I avoid tax sometimes, and it's wrong. I really do have a problem with Cook on this, and it's one of the few occasions where he gets aggressive because he knows he's wrong. There's no need. Apple is a business whose prime aim is the accumulation of money and shareholder return. Like a lot of business. Other concerns - such as workers' protection, tax paid in the spirit of community, sourcing raw materials sustainably - are secondary. Just say so. People will still buy Apple. I know all this and I do. -- Cheers, Rob |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , RJH wrote:
Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period. They avoid paying tax. Period. nope. apple follows the tax code to reduce their tax liability, just like other businesses and individuals do, which is not only legal, but smart business. apple does *not* fudge the numbers to avoid paying taxes. that's illegal and stupid. unfortunately, there are a few businesses who don't pay what they owe and they eventually get fined or even shut down. here's two: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...n-3-Five-Guys- Locations-Citing-Failure-to-Pay-Taxes-462115413.html The D.C. government has ordered the shutdown of three Five Guys restaurants in the city because the owners failed to pay sales taxes, officials say. https://www.pressherald.com/2018/03/...-bar-in-portla nd-to-serve-4-months-for-failing-to-pay-taxes/ The owner of a landmark bar and restaurant on Portland¹s waterfront will serve four months in jail and pay more than $1.3 million in restitution for failing to turn over most of her sales taxes to the state, and for not paying her personal and corporate Maine income taxes, over a period of seven years. Why did they shift off-shoring tax from Ireland to Jersey? Partly to save face. But to save face over avoiding $14B in tax. By avoiding it in a more obscure way. nope. apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do so. Nonsense. There is no law that says a company cannot pay tax at a full and fair local rate. public companies have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. judge learned hand, http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h tml Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) May? Why not must, if it's 'the law'? read it again. Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion Tax *is* a moral construct. There is nothing intrinsic or innate about tax, and law is a feeble attempt to uphold an ethical position - that tax is paid on a proportion of profit (in this case). And using a legal case to underpin a legal argument is hardly the point at issue. Avoidance is legal. Avoidance is also about moral and ethical issues. Rationality, if you like. they're not avoiding anything. I'd happily revise my opinion in the light of a coherent moral or ethical position on Apple's behaviour. doubtful. I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. you would fail incredibly hard at such an argument. Just internet search "apple tax avoidance" (in quotes if you want - 30k+ hits). It really isn't my argument. just internet search "flat earth", 11.6 million hits w/o quotes, 7.8 million with. that's two orders of magnitude higher than apple tax avoidance, so it *really* must be true. if number of hits in a search is your metric to validate something, then you have *far* bigger problems. apple might not pay what *you* think they should but that's very different. Again, it's not just me. I may well be in a minority, but I don't think I am. minority/majority isn't the issue. apple is paying their *legal* tax obligation. period. paying *more* than what they legally owe is stupid. do you pay more than what you owe?? do you take deductions? *you* didn't write the tax code, so what *you* think apple or any other company should pay is completely irrelevant. and why single out apple? amazon, who paid nothing compared to the ~11b that apple paid in fy'17, along with microsoft, facebook, google, cisco and the rest, all use the tax code to their advantage. Agreed. They all avoid tax. I'm singling out Apple because they're the object of discussion. I don't consider them to be the worst by a long chalk. I avoid tax sometimes, and it's wrong. then you're a hypocrite. I really do have a problem with Cook on this, and it's one of the few occasions where he gets aggressive because he knows he's wrong. he's not wrong. he's just a whole lot smarter than you are about how to run a business. There's no need. Apple is a business whose prime aim is the accumulation of money and shareholder return. Like a lot of business. like every public corporation and nearly all private ones. Other concerns - such as workers' protection, tax paid in the spirit of community, sourcing raw materials sustainably - are secondary. Just say so. People will still buy Apple. I know all this and I do. too bad you don't understand any of it. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:57:28 -0400, schrieb nospam:
And the Mac just can't do that. oh yes it can. Once again you just guess, where you have a 50% chance of being correct, and you're wrong. Even the monkey finds the bannas under the box more often than you would. If we had anyone on the Mac out of the score of people who edited this PowerPoint file with embedded fonts without having to deal with installing system fonts, exactly ZERO of those hypothetical Mac users would have seen the special fonts in the given template. Do you know why nospam? I think you do. You just play your silly semantic games, where I only speak fact. Why do you Apple users play silly games when confronted with facts? I don't know why. I just know that you do. Here's a classic case, for example, of your same silly game. Android Fact: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg Apple Fact: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg Silly games played by the Apple users when confronted with facts: https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo Proof of more of your silly games when confronted with fact, over he https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/qbvz5DeaAgAJ |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Ragnusen Ultred
wrote: And the Mac just can't do that. oh yes it can. Once again you just guess, oh, it's not a guess. it's trivial to make a street sign on a mac, without the cluster**** that you've created. just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:57:26 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Bananas are readily available but they are not generally free. That is why it can be misleading to say they are freely available. bananas are not software They are nouns. good point. all nouns are distributed in the same way software is. another hour or so and my groceries should be finished downloading. The sentence under discussion says nothing about downloading. the issue is pirating cs2, no matter how hard you try to twist it into something else. So too is 'Adobe illustrator'. My statement was concerned with the use/misuse of the English language. as well it should, since you greatly misused it. This from the guy who thinks that parsing applies only to software. where do i get a hardware parser? You don't. But you balked at the idea of parsing the English language. you are pirating it. Not necessarily. yes necessarily. Even if he already has a license? he doesn't and you know it. I've ploughed through much of his junk and found nothing to suggest that he has a copy of Illustrator, exactly the point. So we don't know either way. you might not, but the rest of us certainly know. let alone that he has pirated it. since it's clear that he never bought cs2, downloading it is pirating it. Has he downloaded it? duh. he also has admitted to pirating a wide variety of other stuff, so this is not any sort of surprise. As far as I can tell the discussion is in the general case, in which case neither the presence or absence of a license can be assumed. assumed is the wrong word. no assumptions are necessary. Where is your evidence? his numerous posts in this thread and others. based on what he's written in this thread and countless others, it's *quite* clear what he's doing. The clarity is an inference. not to those who pay attention. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 2018-04-03 7:21 PM, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
Am Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:57:28 -0400, schrieb nospam: And the Mac just can't do that. oh yes it can. Once again you just guess, where you have a 50% chance of being correct, and you're wrong. Even the monkey finds the bannas under the box more often than you would. If we had anyone on the Mac out of the score of people who edited this PowerPoint file with embedded fonts without having to deal with installing system fonts, exactly ZERO of those hypothetical Mac users would have seen the special fonts in the given template. Do you know why nospam? I think you do. You just play your silly semantic games, where I only speak fact. Why do you Apple users play silly games when confronted with facts? I don't know why. I just know that you do. Here's a classic case, for example, of your same silly game. Â*Android Fact: Â*http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg Â*Apple Fact: Â*http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg Silly games played by the Apple users when confronted with facts: Â*https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo Proof of more of your silly games when confronted with fact, over he https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/qbvz5DeaAgAJ Wow, but you're tedious little twit. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Tue, 03 Apr 2018 22:28:30 -0400, schrieb nospam:
just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible. hehhehheh .. *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* More of your classic Apple Apologist denials of well-known fact. Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content? https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/Q2Fj-D3CWcs/e-Wtg_mlBAAJ What's so predictable about you nospam, is you incessantly fabricate fictional Apple functionality, that even you must know doesn't exist. Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality? https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/yekUPvIXAwAJ Since you claim a functionality that simply doesn't exist, and you'll repeatedly and incessantly fabricate that fictional functionality, let's see if you can get a single other poster to agree with you that your entirely fictional functionality actually exists. *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:57:27 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: you are pirating it. Not necessarily. If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a licence. That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it" nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct. nope. i explained that. the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. Is he even using it? he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download it. That applies to most people. and? did you have a point? no. It destroys your absolute confidence that he "is not entitled to legally download it". While that applies to most people it does not apply to all people. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: you are pirating it. Not necessarily. If you're downloading the tweaked versions from Adobe without actually owning a licence, then yes, you are pirating it. The instructions on Aodbe's download page specifically say you have to already own a licence. That was more or less my point. While piracy was probable it is not necessarily piracy in every case. In saying "you are pirating it" nospam had jumped to a conclusion which was not necessarily correct. nope. i explained that. the reality is that 'ultred' doesn't have a license and is pirating it. Is he even using it? he claims to have used it, however, that's irrelevant. since he never bought it in the first place, he is not entitled to legally download it. That applies to most people. and? did you have a point? no. It destroys your absolute confidence that he "is not entitled to legally download it". it doesn't destroy *anything*. in fact it's the opposite. it's proof he pirated it. While that applies to most people it does not apply to all people. i never said it did. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 04:23, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
Am Tue, 03 Apr 2018 22:28:30 -0400, schrieb nospam: just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible. hehhehheh .. *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* I'm pleased to see that you have updated your Thunderbird software! :-) *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* For your written script to appear emboldened in Thunderbird, you need to adjust where you place the asterisk at the right-hand end, viz:- *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality*. HTH -- David B. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
"RJH" wrote
| apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they | owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code | allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do | so. | | | Nonsense. Hey, give the guy a chance. April 15th is coming up and it sounds like he knows a legal way to move all my income to the Cayman Islands, so that I can "fairly and legally" pay no income tax. After all, "everyone" avoids taxes if they can, right? This must be they key to how one buys a $1,200 phone with a straight face. I just hope the Linux/Windows user base can afford to keep funding my Social Security check. Those scruffy Linux people don't look like they have a lot of income. And with no help from corporations or hardcore AppleSeeds, the pressure's on them. :) |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb David B.:
I'm pleased to see that you have updated your Thunderbird software! :-) Just for you, since you are an Apple user who doesn't have technical competency and hence you can only play silly semantic games, since you seem to care a lot about what other people's headers say, I updated the headers (just for you) to *Thunderbird version 99.9.9* and I matched your +1 time zone to boot! |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 03:20, nospam wrote:
In article , RJH wrote: Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year. And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes. apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar they owe. I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax. no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period. They avoid paying tax. Period. nope. apple follows the tax code to reduce their tax liability, just like other businesses and individuals do, which is not only legal, but smart business. There is no such thing as a 'tax code' in the sense you are using it. There's more than one way of paying, avoiding or evading tax. apple does *not* fudge the numbers to avoid paying taxes. that's illegal and stupid. It obfuscates. unfortunately, there are a few businesses who don't pay what they owe and they eventually get fined or even shut down. here's two: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...n-3-Five-Guys- Locations-Citing-Failure-to-Pay-Taxes-462115413.html The D.C. government has ordered the shutdown of three Five Guys restaurants in the city because the owners failed to pay sales taxes, officials say. https://www.pressherald.com/2018/03/...-bar-in-portla nd-to-serve-4-months-for-failing-to-pay-taxes/ The owner of a landmark bar and restaurant on Portland¹s waterfront will serve four months in jail and pay more than $1.3 million in restitution for failing to turn over most of her sales taxes to the state, and for not paying her personal and corporate Maine income taxes, over a period of seven years. Why did they shift off-shoring tax from Ireland to Jersey? Partly to save face. But to save face over avoiding $14B in tax. By avoiding it in a more obscure way. nope. Um - why, then? apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do so. What is this 'tax code'? Nonsense. There is no law that says a company cannot pay tax at a full and fair local rate. public companies have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Ah, so it's not a 'law'. And it's not an obligation. Plenty, albeit a minority, of companies do not act as Apple acts. judge learned hand, http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h tml Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) May? Why not must, if it's 'the law'? read it again. My point remains - there's no legal obligation to avoid paying tax. Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion Tax *is* a moral construct. There is nothing intrinsic or innate about tax, and law is a feeble attempt to uphold an ethical position - that tax is paid on a proportion of profit (in this case). And using a legal case to underpin a legal argument is hardly the point at issue. Avoidance is legal. Avoidance is also about moral and ethical issues. Rationality, if you like. they're not avoiding anything. I'd happily revise my opinion in the light of a coherent moral or ethical position on Apple's behaviour. doubtful. Try me :-) I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every tax dollar they should. you would fail incredibly hard at such an argument. Give me a decent reason to agree with Apple's position to, say, take sales in teh UK and not pay tax on those sales and I'll give you a response. Just internet search "apple tax avoidance" (in quotes if you want - 30k+ hits). It really isn't my argument. just internet search "flat earth", 11.6 million hits w/o quotes, 7.8 million with. Apple has been avoiding tax rather more recently. And It's three words. that's two orders of magnitude higher than apple tax avoidance, so it *really* must be true. if number of hits in a search is your metric to validate something, then you have *far* bigger problems. apple might not pay what *you* think they should but that's very different. Again, it's not just me. I may well be in a minority, but I don't think I am. minority/majority isn't the issue. apple is paying their *legal* tax obligation. period. Insofar as I understand it, agreed. paying *more* than what they legally owe is stupid. do you pay more than what you owe?? do you take deductions? No and yes. *you* didn't write the tax code, so what *you* think apple or any other company should pay is completely irrelevant. and why single out apple? amazon, who paid nothing compared to the ~11b that apple paid in fy'17, along with microsoft, facebook, google, cisco and the rest, all use the tax code to their advantage. Agreed. They all avoid tax. I'm singling out Apple because they're the object of discussion. I don't consider them to be the worst by a long chalk. I avoid tax sometimes, and it's wrong. then you're a hypocrite. Indeed. Like just about every other adult. I really do have a problem with Cook on this, and it's one of the few occasions where he gets aggressive because he knows he's wrong. he's not wrong. he's just a whole lot smarter than you are about how to run a business. he's wrong in the sense that he's arguing that what he's doing is morally inconsistent. It isn't, and he knows it. There's no need. Apple is a business whose prime aim is the accumulation of money and shareholder return. Like a lot of business. like every public corporation and nearly all private ones. Yep. Other concerns - such as workers' protection, tax paid in the spirit of community, sourcing raw materials sustainably - are secondary. Just say so. People will still buy Apple. I know all this and I do. too bad you don't understand any of it. In good company it seems :-) -- Cheers, Rob |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 13:13, Mayayana wrote:
"RJH" wrote | apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they | owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code | allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do | so. | | | Nonsense. Hey, give the guy a chance. April 15th is coming up and it sounds like he knows a legal way to move all my income to the Cayman Islands, so that I can "fairly and legally" pay no income tax. After all, "everyone" avoids taxes if they can, right? This must be they key to how one buys a $1,200 phone with a straight face. You wish :-) -- Cheers, Rob |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: After all, "everyone" avoids taxes if they can, right? everyone takes deductions and whatever else to *reduce* their taxes. that's very different than *evasion*, which is illegal, and for the few who do cheat on their taxes, they eventually get caught. This must be they key to how one buys a $1,200 phone with a straight face. further ignorance. new iphones start at $199 for mvnos. and for those who can afford $1200, so what? it's their money and they get to spend it any way they want. do you bash people who buy fancy cars and houses? |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , RJH wrote:
no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period. They avoid paying tax. Period. nope. apple follows the tax code to reduce their tax liability, just like other businesses and individuals do, which is not only legal, but smart business. There is no such thing as a 'tax code' in the sense you are using it. yes there is, and it was just changed. There's more than one way of paying, avoiding or evading tax. those are three very different things, but so what? apple pays their fair share, as does any well run business. apple does not evade paying taxes, nor does any well run business. a company or individual who evades paying taxes eventually gets caught. apple does *not* fudge the numbers to avoid paying taxes. that's illegal and stupid. It obfuscates. no. apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do so. What is this 'tax code'? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-code.asp A tax code is a federal government document, numbering tens of thousands of pages that details the rules individuals and businesses must follow, in remitting a percentage of their incomes to the federal government. The tax code is used as a source by tax lawyers whom bear the responsibility of interpreting it for the public. start he https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26 Nonsense. There is no law that says a company cannot pay tax at a full and fair local rate. public companies have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Ah, so it's not a 'law'. And it's not an obligation. Plenty, albeit a minority, of companies do not act as Apple acts. any business that pays more taxes than it legally owes is very poorly run. judge learned hand, http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h tml Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) May? Why not must, if it's 'the law'? read it again. My point remains - there's no legal obligation to avoid paying tax. read it one more time. here's a clue: there is no legal obligation to pay *more* tax than is owed. someone certainly can pay more if they really want, but that would be incredibly stupid. put your money where you mouth is. call the irs and tell them you will be paying more tax than required and *not* to process the extra as a refund (which is what normally happens with any excess). also, every time you see a discounted price in a store or online vendor, tell them you want to pay the full price and to *remove* any discounts. be sure to sort prices high to low, not the other way around. apple is paying their *legal* tax obligation. period. Insofar as I understand it, agreed. then there's absolutely no issue, is there? paying *more* than what they legally owe is stupid. do you pay more than what you owe?? do you take deductions? No and yes. then you're avoiding paying taxes. you're a hypocrite. I really do have a problem with Cook on this, and it's one of the few occasions where he gets aggressive because he knows he's wrong. he's not wrong. he's just a whole lot smarter than you are about how to run a business. he's wrong in the sense that he's arguing that what he's doing is morally inconsistent. It isn't, and he knows it. bull****. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 15:03, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
Am Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb David B.: I'm pleased to see that you have updated your Thunderbird software! :-) Just for you, since you are an Apple user who doesn't have technical competency and hence you can only play silly semantic games, since you seem to care a lot about what other people's headers say, I updated the headers (just for you) to *Thunderbird version 99.9.9* and I matched your +1 time zone to boot! *Thank you*. :-) -- David B. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 16:54, David B. wrote:
On 04/04/2018 15:03, Ragnusen Ultred wrote: Am Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:31:40 +0100, schrieb David B.: I'm pleased to see that you have updated your Thunderbird software! :-) Just for you, since you are an Apple user who doesn't have technical competency and hence you can only play silly semantic games, since you seem to care a lot about what other people's headers say, I updated the headers (just for you) to *Thunderbird version* *99.9.9* and I matched your +1 time zone to boot! *Thank you*. :-) Btw, the asterisk emboldening doesn't work around *numbers* in Thunderbird. HTH -- David B. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
In article , David B.
wrote: Btw, the asterisk emboldening doesn't work around *numbers* in Thunderbird. assuming that's actually true and not due to your own incompetence, it's further evidence thunderbird is a piece of ****. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 04/04/2018 08:31, David B. wrote:
On 04/04/2018 04:23, Ragnusen Ultred wrote: Am Tue, 03 Apr 2018 22:28:30 -0400, schrieb nospam: just because *you* can't figure out how doesn't mean it's impossible. hehhehheh .. *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* I'm pleased to see that you have updated your Thunderbird software! :-) *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality.* For your written script to appear emboldened in Thunderbird, you need to adjust where you place the asterisk at the right-hand end, viz:- *Your entire belief system is comprised of fictional functionality*. See Message-ID: for additional information. http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152285786900 -- D. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:14 +0100, schrieb David B.:
Btw, the asterisk emboldening doesn't work around *numbers* in Thunderbird. Hi David B. I may owe you a sincere heartfelt public apology. Most, if not almost all, Apple posters always act like little children, and they have for decades (it's the sole reason for all the Apple:Windows and Apple:Linux and Apple:Android idiotic threads - since the Apple user almost always acts like a fact-challenged child). However, you seem to be different from the average Apple poster here. What's *amazing* about you, which wouldn't be amazing for normal adults, but for Apple users it's *astoundingly amazing*, is that you actually provided a factual _reference_ in your posts. Also, what's amazing is that you didn't use childish fifth-grade vitriol, although I took your original comment about my old Thunderbird software as a typical Apple bull**** response whenever asked a simple technical question, which is that Apple users aren't competent whenever the question involves an answer that Apple Marketing didn't give them. So, I assumed you were playing the same silly semantic games that almost all the incompetent Apple posters play, simply because they can never answer even teh /simplest/ of technical questions. Of course, this fact has been proven time and again with simple methods such as asking the same question (as this one was) on the adult newsgroups and on the Apple newsgroups - where what happens on the Apple newsgroups is: 1. The posters act like children, almost every one, and, 2. They can't answer the technical question, so, 3. They quibble about silly semantic games (endlessly). What's /shocking/ to me is that you did *not* play that endless game! Remember, *all* the decades-long arguments are solely because of these reasons above, since they only happen on Apple newsgroups and the silly semantic games are always played by the non-technical Apple users. As you know by now, I can change almost any header in this message that I want since my Usenet reader is "vi" and the client is a bunch of shell scripts that simply do a randomized lookup when I post (locked to the thread topic and newsgroup for courtesy reasons). So, having said all that by way of explanation, I owe you a public apology because I had thought you were just playing the silly semantic games that almost all Apple posters play (because they have no on-topic value). In the end, despite your point being off topic, you handled the responses much more like an adult would than most Apple posters would. So, kudos to you for being like an adult, and sincere heartfelt apologies from me for assuming you were just another technically incompetent Apple baby who could do nothing but silly semantic games. Mea culpa. I apologize for not treating you as an adult would. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
Am Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:53:33 -0700, schrieb Alan Baker:
Wow, but you're tedious little twit. This is a note to David B., which is that *this* post above, from Alan Baker, is how Apple users react to simple questions. That's why I had assumed you were a similar child, since I've been on Usenet for decades, where the Apple user is almost always incapable of answering even the /simplest/ of questions, and where that Apple user always responds with hateful vitriol to facts. It's *always* the Apple poster acting like a child, which is why I was surprised David B. when you acted like an adult. My sincere apologies to David B., where he may understand the frustration that intelligent adults have with the average Apple poster such as Alan Baker is. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?
On 2018-04-04 6:00 PM, Ragnusen Ultred wrote:
Am Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:53:33 -0700, schrieb Alan Baker: Wow, but you're tedious little twit. This is a note to David B., which is that *this* post above, from Alan Baker, is how Apple users react to simple questions. No, "Ragnusen". It's how I react to tedious little twits, twit. |
Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint with fonts?
"David B."
Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:37:24 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote: snip for brevity only That a rather sad tale. :-( It sounds as if you've been doing this alone, rather than with a group of like-minded folk. Have you ever considered joining a professional 'team' and earn a living in a more straight-forward manner? WARNING! This is a classic David Brooks method of initiating with a future stalking victim. See he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php -- Don't become the next David Brooks cyberstalking victim! Visit https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php (10/10 WOT) to learn more. If you've already become a victim or know someone who has, you can provide the following information to them, your lawyer, local law enforcement, etc. https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk - His local police. Report? David Brooks (BoaterDave) Jersey Cottage 86 Granary Lane Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6ER United Kingdom Phone: 44-1395-443340 (H) 07974-193550 (M) Email(s): , |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com