for those people (probablly americans) stop critising the LHC becuase its bigger than the accelerator at fermilab. thats like kids arguing over who has a better skateboard.
Yes, it's exactly like that.
You seem to not understand that our TVs, sound systems, sports cars and particle accelerators are simply the adult extensions of our skateboards.
KEEP YOUR OPINION TO YOURSELF.
Why? It's called freedom of speech - perhaps you've heard of it.
You certainly seem to think that you have it, by virtue of the protocols you've issued.
News flash - since the beginning of time people have freely expressed opinion without regard for fact - and this is never more true than when the speaker is convinced that they are expressing facts. Now, I wasn't around at the beginning of time, so far as I recall, but it's my opinion that that behavior has been occurring for at least that long and is therefore neither limited to Americans nor to Fermilab fans.
My other opinion is that you're probably upset that Fermilab isn't in Europe and that you're simply jealous that you're missing out on all the fun.
But you are providing plenty - for me anyway. This snippet is simply priceless:
quite frankly i'm so sick of people critisising the LHC, especially the people at fermilab. firstly most people don;t know a damn thing about particle physics...
Uh - ok - would those be the people at Fermilab that don't know a damn thing?
BTW - my skateboard has something like 300 BHP, a gazillion ft-lbs of torque, and gets 21 miles per gallon when cruising at just over 100 miles per hour, when cruising that way for about 2 to 2.5 hours at a stretch. And as soon as I translate a gazillion ft-lbs into SI, I'll get back to you on what that means - or - I'll just wait for an opinion from Illinois on that.
Meanwhile, in my opinion, this sounds pretty cool:
And almost finally, in my opinion, I deserve extra crunchy mod points just for avoiding the whole bigger vs. keeping it up line of jokes in response to your post (which given that there is NO NEWS in TFA, makes your complaint even funnier).
NOT IMPORTANT
That's the worst sig ever. In my opinion, you should have a higher opinion of yourself, even if that current sig summarizes the opinions in your post perfectly.
I think you should cheer up now and have a fabulous day, but that's just another one of my opinions.
I don't believe that Gates was impressed by Xerox.
Then again - FTFA:
However, I can recall that within my first year at Microsoft, Gates had acquired a Xerox Star, and encouraged employees to try it out because he thought it exemplified the future of where the PC would be headed and this was long before Microsoft even saw a Mac or even a Lisa from Apple.
The rest of your information is equally as accurate.
Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?
Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.
While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....
Then you also remember how, after the breakup, with the popularity of things like 1200 baud modems you had to contact the phone company and let them know that you had another device on your line? They didn't charge you for it, but initially they could and sometimes would discontinue service for the "unknown" additional device on their circuit.
The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
Yeah. Well, my father-in-law had a collection of Model T Fords - and one of them had a vaporizer plate on the engine block - I believe that was on his 1928 model (could have been the '24).
It was simple - and an installable option. Engine block had a slight circular recess with some screw holes on either side. One mounted a *small* tin plate (seemed like tin to me, much like those disposable ashtrays) via the screws - it had contours for the gas line lead-ins and -outs.
The gas was heated, vaporized, and pressurized - back in the '20s.
Substantiation here, see part 24 of Fig 1, the hot plate:
You described the load being created by the 40,000 employees, 30,000 children and 20,000 spouses. The way I read that (whether or not it was what you intended) was that there were 90,000 people who are a drain on the state and local economies.
Ah. Drain not intended. Just a statement of the population size of the dynamics involved, merely one dimension.
With all the problems in the world right now, this one just seems pretty inconsequential.
I meant that you obviously hold the view that a democratic system is the best system for you, yet you acknowledge that it has shortcomings. Therefore my assumption is that you believe yourself to be voting "correctly", yet since political corruption exists, the "majority" must be voting different from you and thus "incorrectly".
Epic fail that I believe that I'm voting correctly.
I'm merely voting within my best judgement at the moment.
In a democracy, one must exercise the franchise knowing that the majority may not be right, but has the right to rule.
Time is as likely to prove me right as as it is to prove me wrong on any issue or candidate for whom I vote.
If results prove untenable, then civil activism, followed by civil protest, followed by civil disobedience, followed ultimately by vacation or revolution are all political options.
Since we're into clichés...
You started it. In the words of another famous American: neener neener neener.
Please explain your rationale? Considering the sample size of a vote, it's fair to say that the proportion of votes is going to be similar no matter how many voters you pull at random out of the total. If there were more voters, the election result would probably be the same to within a few decimal places.
Rationale is simple - voter abstinence is a symptom of voter apathy and apathy is a symptom of political ignorance.
Your argument is cogent and correct if the assumption holds true that with higher voter turnout, there would be no change in that ignorance.
I would argue that higher turnout would be a symptom contrary to apathy.
Today, people look at shenanigans and say, in essence, "See? That's why I don't vote!" - or- the ones that do vote can't get anywhere with a representative because the representative knows that apathy rules; you can't threaten to not vote for a politician when his going in position is that you might not vote next time anyway.
Were there a high turnout, that situation would necessarily change. Instead of "that's why I don't vote" politicians might then care if votes were threatened.
You may go back to Plato for supporting examples of human nature, but more telling is the early American history - or the early history of any country adopting representative government. People jealously guarded and protected the franchise they fought for. It's not straightforward enough to explain by simple example alone.
Bloodshed is almost never the answer to anything except to answer if you want more bloodshed.
Recalling Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Anything further would entail hypotheticals of utopianism, on both our parts.
But sure, be short-sighted and continue to think that you are the ONE TRUE VOTER, and everyone else is against you voting for the "wrong" people all the time.
I could not follow your point there, neither taking it personally, nor rhetorically. Kindly clarify, and if personal, OK, but thanks in advance for telling me how that applied to me or what I said.
Your original post was one of cynicism - to paraphrase, that even if Washington state politicians could get their mitts on all of MS's money, they'd still need more. I wasn't questioning that - it's too sadly true for every one of the few states I'm familiar with. I wasn't even taking the hard line - I was simply asking if with this proposal if you'd really felt that they'd be paying enough.
I'm branded as being a corporate-hater now. (Fine - life is short and this is just slashdot.) I'm not, though.
I was asking whether your cynicism was just that or if you're a corporate-lover. You're evidently not.
And for what it's worth, Michigan's failed economy came - in my opinion - from over-doing it between corporations and government.
I don't know how best to tax corporations...
If I ever figure that out, I'll write a book, get rich, look you up and cut you in for 15%.
...but I know that I'm paying a lot for the services that the state provides.
Aren't we all, brother, aren't we all!?!
Exactly the point of my question - how much of that is waste, how much is graft, how much is bad legislation, how well does this bill serve you?
If Microsoft is giving enough, they should get more of a break - if not, then not.
Your distaste for corporations and Microsoft in particular have blinded you...
Fuck off.
You've clearly read nothing of the rest of this exchange. Nowhere did I accuse of Microsoft of not contributing, I simply asked if Microsoft had sufficiently.
My distaste for corporations and Microsoft - especially as an economic powerhouse - is entirely non-existent.
You want a soft target to peddle your superiority, pick somewhere else.
This is a loaded question. If someone were to answer "yes", it would open them up to (intended) ridicule.
OK - that was beyond my conception. Intel lives within 3 miles of me and I consider them, by their tax breaks, taxes paid, and all other factors, to be giving back as least as much as it takes from our state, New Mexico.
Ridicule away - but seriously, I was shooting more for an even analytical response than as flame-bait, and would have been just as satisfied with a yes answer, or if nothing else, some compelling information that I was missing.
I did NOT know if the OP was a Washington resident in first place (so I asked that), and did not know if my factors had been considered (so I asked that next), and if he was a resident, and if he had considered those options, what the answer would be to: is Microsoft a good corporate neighbor?
Unlike you, I think questions are often just questions.
I didn't say that Microsoft was responsible for everything - and I'm not going to defend against things inferred that I did not imply.
Financial models are non-trivial, but in the end, an economy is simple.
My question was honest - kindly quote it in its full context:
You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?
If you want to attack me, why not attack me for the ignorance I was guilty of - that Washington residents don't pay state income taxes - THAT was the (erroneous) basis of my question, and that's what the OP has held me accountable for.
Had I known that, I *still* might have asked a similar question. Or - I might not. Personally, I don't know what I might have done in the past.
In any case, the real part that bugged me about your original post was the implication that I'm a drain on the state.
I'm not sure how you inferred that when it wasn't in my heart or psyche to imply it.
Maybe you're a little too thin-skinned and are reading every question as anti-Microsoft. Personally, I found the tax bill proposal to be chock-full of corporate evil - and very typical - and simply asked some cold questions. But it was the representative that put it on the table - not you.
I ran some rough numbers and asked a question about the proportions of taxes. If asking the question is the same as inferring an answer, I can't really be responsible for that. I'm not passive aggressive - when I have a bitch, I come right out with it.
I live within 3 miles of an Intel fab and work in the semiconductor industry myself. If you think I'm clueless about state economies, or that I'm just some tree-hugging corporate hater, you're wrong.
But - I'm not a big corporate lover, either. And I'm way unhappy that we all take that our governments have been bought completely for granted. Because, yes, had not Washington been buyable, they *could* move to a state that was. And that's part of the problem. When you turn a financial model on its ear, you have to turn it all of the way - right down to the point that it's the common voters comprising the work force that influences the local representatives the most. And no more people vote in your state than mine - the original home of Microsoft, where the financial community was very unfriendly to a young Bill Gates because he didn't make old-school sense (in fact - from stories I've heard, he was evidently un-crooked at the time and no one could see how to make money off of him, and therefore found no motivation to help him).
Hope this squares us for you. Seriously - what kind of stress are you under to have that kind of hair trigger?
My question - that you live in Washington and considered MS a good corporate neighbor, was most sincere and not at all sarcastic in intent.
Even better that you're a Microsoft employee as you're answers could be more to the heart of the matter.
Yes - as in the state in which I reside, I use those roads and services *regardless* of my employer.
But in *almost* every state, *a personal income tax* is one of a puzzle that includes federal revenue, *taxes from state corporations*, sales taxes and so forth.
I admit my ignorance that Washington was a state not collecting income taxes - I thought that was only Alaska, Texas, Florida, Nevada and South Dakota - I see now that should also include Washington and Wyoming.
My bad.
I was honestly asking if you'd felt the balance between corporate and personal income taxes were fair. Not paying income taxes, my question made little sense to you.
I never said that Microsoft didn't contribute to the state nor to the economy.
Personally - I think the whole proposal's whacked, but that's just me. It won't do a lot of good to that 9.5% you're used to, I would guess.
Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.
I'm happy to have given this simple civics lesson - when citizens don't vote, they get what's coming to them.
Please remove yourself from the population so that you can do your part to help curb the deficit!
The times I consider removing myself from the population is more centered around having to live in a world with assholes like you.
No, I didn't miss the point at all, I simply understand that it's perfectly legal and ok for non-profits to promote and advertise, and even to accept advertising.
I'm not anti-MS, I'm just anti-stupidity.
But that's ok. I don't expect to convince clueless AC shills of anything.
OK - so Microsoft employs how many people in Washington?
Around 40,000, as I recall. Let's give about 30,000 as the number of children and another 20,000 for spouses and significant others. Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators for those teachers (up to the state level, and I think I'm being conservative). Let's factor in the infrastructure businesses that exist in Washington whose entire existence is centered around Microsoft.
So, between the load on the roads, the educational system, firefighters, police and other essential services, you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state? And that the rank and file employee state taxes fairly offset those for the MS cream of the crop?
You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?
Even Mozilla dodges taxes because they are a "non profit" and get PAID millions of dollars from google as part of a business deal. But I guess if you pay a tiny percentage of that money to pay for nerds to work on open source, you're immune from criticism on Slashdot.
Right. Because the income dealings of a non-profit corporation are really just so shrouded in secrecy, loopholes and backroom deals.
In the time it took me to respond, Microsoft just wrote off more in taxes than the Mozilla Foundation is worth.
The idea that articles would be pro or con seems insane to me.
While there's a lot to be said for objective journalism, there's as much to be said for op-ed pages. Personally, I rather enjoy the mix of both to consider and read comments for on any given day on/.
That said - there's a cycle of posting on/. and if one reads day-in, day-out for years, and remembers, then one finds that the cycle is a common outcry of "/. is anti-Microsoft" alternating with the common outcry of "/. is anti-Apple" - when neither is strictly true, it's just a cycle that's observable. (As I recall the/. salad days, it was all anti-Microsoft and anti-Apple and pro-Linux - the humorous comments were more wry and sardonic - but maybe that's just me.)
I mention this not to accuse you but to support you: those fervent believers in one pro- or con- side for any given topic are legion. Our dumbed-down "news" sources know that there are now simply more of the unwashed that simply must participate in ingroup/outgroup thinking, as opposed to agreeing to discourse and when necessary to agree to disagree, and so when raw readership numbers are all that matter matter - they serve the unwashed.
Perhaps it's always been thus in journalism throughout time, and it's up to us to find quality news publications within the noise.
It's a part of the internet phenom we all overlooked until AOL newbies started flooding usenet with complaints that we were on their internet - the net has come through with interactive exchange and is truly egalitarian.
But the unspoken belief that egalitarianism - in short: opportunity - would translate to the opportunity for all comers to step up has proven untrue, when the obvious temptation that's being succumbed to is simply this: in general, people view the information highway not as a mechanism to gain new information that shapes new beliefs and leads to intellectual evolution, but rather as a conduit for quasi-information that supports their existing idiocies.
Microsoft BASIC was hands down the best BASIC to program a PC with in the early 1980s.
That's true but incomplete.
Microsoft BASIC was tied to the IBM-PC's ROM, as I recall. As soon as clones hit the scene, bringing PC prices down and opening the market through the increased consumption that resulted from the lower prices, it was GW-BASIC that ruled the roost. A minor point, as GW-BASIC was also from Microsoft, but an economically important one.
That BASIC story was yet another in the long line of leveraged business strategies employed by Microsoft. This was usually, in my estimation, a combination of Microsoft's business acumen coupled with misjudgments by key competitors.
MS/GW-BASIC - no different, in my opinion.
Consider that MS-BASIC already had a large following first as AppleSoft (Microsoft's Apple ][ BASIC implementation), and later, as MS-BASIC for CP/M.
However - near the time of the original PC, came first the Osborne 1 and then.... the Kaypro.
The Kaypro was an absolutely wonderful CP/M platform, especially powerful because of it's included SBASIC from Topaz - now THAT was a *great* BASIC.
And did Topaz take structured BASIC to the world of the PCs? Like so many other great CP/M products, they relied on the common sense of the marketing realizing that they could more and do it more cheaply and easily on a CP/M platform. (Remember - there were never the number of CP/M users to build that critical mass.)
So - while MS was catapulting BASIC forward - Topaz did nothing.
The inferior BASIC won - because no one else really came to the table to exploit the code base and skills of the previous generation of BASIC programmers.
Anyway - that's how I recall it went down. I could be mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to push the pramalot!
Total and absolute BS. Most college educations are completely worthless.
I'm reminded of the quote to the effect that college does not create fools, it merely develops the fools that entered.
It's not college that's the problem.
for those people (probablly americans) stop critising the LHC becuase its bigger than the accelerator at fermilab. thats like kids arguing over who has a better skateboard.
Yes, it's exactly like that.
You seem to not understand that our TVs, sound systems, sports cars and particle accelerators are simply the adult extensions of our skateboards.
KEEP YOUR OPINION TO YOURSELF.
Why? It's called freedom of speech - perhaps you've heard of it.
You certainly seem to think that you have it, by virtue of the protocols you've issued.
News flash - since the beginning of time people have freely expressed opinion without regard for fact - and this is never more true than when the speaker is convinced that they are expressing facts. Now, I wasn't around at the beginning of time, so far as I recall, but it's my opinion that that behavior has been occurring for at least that long and is therefore neither limited to Americans nor to Fermilab fans.
My other opinion is that you're probably upset that Fermilab isn't in Europe and that you're simply jealous that you're missing out on all the fun.
But you are providing plenty - for me anyway. This snippet is simply priceless:
quite frankly i'm so sick of people critisising the LHC, especially the people at fermilab. firstly most people don;t know a damn thing about particle physics...
Uh - ok - would those be the people at Fermilab that don't know a damn thing?
BTW - my skateboard has something like 300 BHP, a gazillion ft-lbs of torque, and gets 21 miles per gallon when cruising at just over 100 miles per hour, when cruising that way for about 2 to 2.5 hours at a stretch. And as soon as I translate a gazillion ft-lbs into SI, I'll get back to you on what that means - or - I'll just wait for an opinion from Illinois on that.
Meanwhile, in my opinion, this sounds pretty cool:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2010/today10-03-10Column_readmore.html
And almost finally, in my opinion, I deserve extra crunchy mod points just for avoiding the whole bigger vs. keeping it up line of jokes in response to your post (which given that there is NO NEWS in TFA, makes your complaint even funnier).
NOT IMPORTANT
That's the worst sig ever. In my opinion, you should have a higher opinion of yourself, even if that current sig summarizes the opinions in your post perfectly.
I think you should cheer up now and have a fabulous day, but that's just another one of my opinions.
I don't believe that Gates was impressed by Xerox.
Then again - FTFA:
However, I can recall that within my first year at Microsoft, Gates had acquired a Xerox Star, and encouraged employees to try it out because he thought it exemplified the future of where the PC would be headed and this was long before Microsoft even saw a Mac or even a Lisa from Apple.
The rest of your information is equally as accurate.
Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?
Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.
While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....
Then you also remember how, after the breakup, with the popularity of things like 1200 baud modems you had to contact the phone company and let them know that you had another device on your line? They didn't charge you for it, but initially they could and sometimes would discontinue service for the "unknown" additional device on their circuit.
From TFA:
The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
Yeah. Well, my father-in-law had a collection of Model T Fords - and one of them had a vaporizer plate on the engine block - I believe that was on his 1928 model (could have been the '24).
It was simple - and an installable option. Engine block had a slight circular recess with some screw holes on either side. One mounted a *small* tin plate (seemed like tin to me, much like those disposable ashtrays) via the screws - it had contours for the gas line lead-ins and -outs.
The gas was heated, vaporized, and pressurized - back in the '20s.
Substantiation here, see part 24 of Fig 1, the hot plate:
http://old-carburetors.com/1927-Dykes/1927-Dykes-059.htm
Better to read the link the guy pointed us at, where it's explained that students were being told that the green light was just a glitch.
You described the load being created by the 40,000 employees, 30,000 children and 20,000 spouses. The way I read that (whether or not it was what you intended) was that there were 90,000 people who are a drain on the state and local economies.
Ah. Drain not intended. Just a statement of the population size of the dynamics involved, merely one dimension.
With all the problems in the world right now, this one just seems pretty inconsequential.
Perhaps.
I meant that you obviously hold the view that a democratic system is the best system for you, yet you acknowledge that it has shortcomings. Therefore my assumption is that you believe yourself to be voting "correctly", yet since political corruption exists, the "majority" must be voting different from you and thus "incorrectly".
Epic fail that I believe that I'm voting correctly.
I'm merely voting within my best judgement at the moment.
In a democracy, one must exercise the franchise knowing that the majority may not be right, but has the right to rule.
Time is as likely to prove me right as as it is to prove me wrong on any issue or candidate for whom I vote.
If results prove untenable, then civil activism, followed by civil protest, followed by civil disobedience, followed ultimately by vacation or revolution are all political options.
Since we're into clichés...
You started it. In the words of another famous American: neener neener neener.
Fangs back - sincere apologies.
Not a good day - we all have them - please forgive.
Please explain your rationale? Considering the sample size of a vote, it's fair to say that the proportion of votes is going to be similar no matter how many voters you pull at random out of the total. If there were more voters, the election result would probably be the same to within a few decimal places.
Rationale is simple - voter abstinence is a symptom of voter apathy and apathy is a symptom of political ignorance.
Your argument is cogent and correct if the assumption holds true that with higher voter turnout, there would be no change in that ignorance.
I would argue that higher turnout would be a symptom contrary to apathy.
Today, people look at shenanigans and say, in essence, "See? That's why I don't vote!" - or- the ones that do vote can't get anywhere with a representative because the representative knows that apathy rules; you can't threaten to not vote for a politician when his going in position is that you might not vote next time anyway.
Were there a high turnout, that situation would necessarily change. Instead of "that's why I don't vote" politicians might then care if votes were threatened.
You may go back to Plato for supporting examples of human nature, but more telling is the early American history - or the early history of any country adopting representative government. People jealously guarded and protected the franchise they fought for. It's not straightforward enough to explain by simple example alone.
Bloodshed is almost never the answer to anything except to answer if you want more bloodshed.
Recalling Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Anything further would entail hypotheticals of utopianism, on both our parts.
But sure, be short-sighted and continue to think that you are the ONE TRUE VOTER, and everyone else is against you voting for the "wrong" people all the time.
I could not follow your point there, neither taking it personally, nor rhetorically. Kindly clarify, and if personal, OK, but thanks in advance for telling me how that applied to me or what I said.
I'm hoping that like myself, you get email notice on replies - I'd like you to note this reply to another part of the exchange:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150518
Actually, I know when I'm writing lazy, and I know when I'm writing mad - I tried hard to make my first post to as level and even as I knew how.
Given the poor response, I failed. I'd fail if I'd tried again - I did do my best, that's all I can offer.
But never did I attempt to bait you. If I failed so poorly with my writing skills, then I apologize.
And just to be clear, that I'm not passive aggressive in a way that would bait you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150548
Your original post was one of cynicism - to paraphrase, that even if Washington state politicians could get their mitts on all of MS's money, they'd still need more. I wasn't questioning that - it's too sadly true for every one of the few states I'm familiar with. I wasn't even taking the hard line - I was simply asking if with this proposal if you'd really felt that they'd be paying enough.
I'm branded as being a corporate-hater now. (Fine - life is short and this is just slashdot.) I'm not, though.
I was asking whether your cynicism was just that or if you're a corporate-lover. You're evidently not.
And for what it's worth, Michigan's failed economy came - in my opinion - from over-doing it between corporations and government.
I don't know how best to tax corporations...
If I ever figure that out, I'll write a book, get rich, look you up and cut you in for 15%.
...but I know that I'm paying a lot for the services that the state provides.
Aren't we all, brother, aren't we all!?!
Exactly the point of my question - how much of that is waste, how much is graft, how much is bad legislation, how well does this bill serve you?
If Microsoft is giving enough, they should get more of a break - if not, then not.
Your distaste for corporations and Microsoft in particular have blinded you...
Fuck off.
You've clearly read nothing of the rest of this exchange. Nowhere did I accuse of Microsoft of not contributing, I simply asked if Microsoft had sufficiently.
My distaste for corporations and Microsoft - especially as an economic powerhouse - is entirely non-existent.
You want a soft target to peddle your superiority, pick somewhere else.
Did I mention: fuck off.
This is a loaded question. If someone were to answer "yes", it would open them up to (intended) ridicule.
OK - that was beyond my conception. Intel lives within 3 miles of me and I consider them, by their tax breaks, taxes paid, and all other factors, to be giving back as least as much as it takes from our state, New Mexico.
Ridicule away - but seriously, I was shooting more for an even analytical response than as flame-bait, and would have been just as satisfied with a yes answer, or if nothing else, some compelling information that I was missing.
I did NOT know if the OP was a Washington resident in first place (so I asked that), and did not know if my factors had been considered (so I asked that next), and if he was a resident, and if he had considered those options, what the answer would be to: is Microsoft a good corporate neighbor?
Unlike you, I think questions are often just questions.
I didn't say that Microsoft was responsible for everything - and I'm not going to defend against things inferred that I did not imply.
Financial models are non-trivial, but in the end, an economy is simple.
My question was honest - kindly quote it in its full context:
You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?
If you want to attack me, why not attack me for the ignorance I was guilty of - that Washington residents don't pay state income taxes - THAT was the (erroneous) basis of my question, and that's what the OP has held me accountable for.
Had I known that, I *still* might have asked a similar question. Or - I might not. Personally, I don't know what I might have done in the past.
In any case, the real part that bugged me about your original post was the implication that I'm a drain on the state.
I'm not sure how you inferred that when it wasn't in my heart or psyche to imply it.
Maybe you're a little too thin-skinned and are reading every question as anti-Microsoft. Personally, I found the tax bill proposal to be chock-full of corporate evil - and very typical - and simply asked some cold questions. But it was the representative that put it on the table - not you.
I ran some rough numbers and asked a question about the proportions of taxes. If asking the question is the same as inferring an answer, I can't really be responsible for that. I'm not passive aggressive - when I have a bitch, I come right out with it.
I live within 3 miles of an Intel fab and work in the semiconductor industry myself. If you think I'm clueless about state economies, or that I'm just some tree-hugging corporate hater, you're wrong.
But - I'm not a big corporate lover, either. And I'm way unhappy that we all take that our governments have been bought completely for granted. Because, yes, had not Washington been buyable, they *could* move to a state that was. And that's part of the problem. When you turn a financial model on its ear, you have to turn it all of the way - right down to the point that it's the common voters comprising the work force that influences the local representatives the most. And no more people vote in your state than mine - the original home of Microsoft, where the financial community was very unfriendly to a young Bill Gates because he didn't make old-school sense (in fact - from stories I've heard, he was evidently un-crooked at the time and no one could see how to make money off of him, and therefore found no motivation to help him).
Hope this squares us for you. Seriously - what kind of stress are you under to have that kind of hair trigger?
My question - that you live in Washington and considered MS a good corporate neighbor, was most sincere and not at all sarcastic in intent.
Even better that you're a Microsoft employee as you're answers could be more to the heart of the matter.
Yes - as in the state in which I reside, I use those roads and services *regardless* of my employer.
But in *almost* every state, *a personal income tax* is one of a puzzle that includes federal revenue, *taxes from state corporations*, sales taxes and so forth.
I admit my ignorance that Washington was a state not collecting income taxes - I thought that was only Alaska, Texas, Florida, Nevada and South Dakota - I see now that should also include Washington and Wyoming.
My bad.
I was honestly asking if you'd felt the balance between corporate and personal income taxes were fair. Not paying income taxes, my question made little sense to you.
I never said that Microsoft didn't contribute to the state nor to the economy.
Personally - I think the whole proposal's whacked, but that's just me. It won't do a lot of good to that 9.5% you're used to, I would guess.
Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.
I'm happy to have given this simple civics lesson - when citizens don't vote, they get what's coming to them.
Please remove yourself from the population so that you can do your part to help curb the deficit!
The times I consider removing myself from the population is more centered around having to live in a world with assholes like you.
No, I didn't miss the point at all, I simply understand that it's perfectly legal and ok for non-profits to promote and advertise, and even to accept advertising.
I'm not anti-MS, I'm just anti-stupidity.
But that's ok. I don't expect to convince clueless AC shills of anything.
I have no problem with this.
OK - so Microsoft employs how many people in Washington?
Around 40,000, as I recall. Let's give about 30,000 as the number of children and another 20,000 for spouses and significant others. Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators for those teachers (up to the state level, and I think I'm being conservative). Let's factor in the infrastructure businesses that exist in Washington whose entire existence is centered around Microsoft.
So, between the load on the roads, the educational system, firefighters, police and other essential services, you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state? And that the rank and file employee state taxes fairly offset those for the MS cream of the crop?
You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?
Even Mozilla dodges taxes because they are a "non profit" and get PAID millions of dollars from google as part of a business deal. But I guess if you pay a tiny percentage of that money to pay for nerds to work on open source, you're immune from criticism on Slashdot.
Right. Because the income dealings of a non-profit corporation are really just so shrouded in secrecy, loopholes and backroom deals.
In the time it took me to respond, Microsoft just wrote off more in taxes than the Mozilla Foundation is worth.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf
Blow me.
I can't help but notice that this article comes on the heels of the OK of corporate personhood status.
I can't find the words that compares the figures from TFA to those on everyone's recently received W2s.
The idea that articles would be pro or con seems insane to me.
While there's a lot to be said for objective journalism, there's as much to be said for op-ed pages. Personally, I rather enjoy the mix of both to consider and read comments for on any given day on /.
That said - there's a cycle of posting on /. and if one reads day-in, day-out for years, and remembers, then one finds that the cycle is a common outcry of "/. is anti-Microsoft" alternating with the common outcry of "/. is anti-Apple" - when neither is strictly true, it's just a cycle that's observable. (As I recall the /. salad days, it was all anti-Microsoft and anti-Apple and pro-Linux - the humorous comments were more wry and sardonic - but maybe that's just me.)
I mention this not to accuse you but to support you: those fervent believers in one pro- or con- side for any given topic are legion. Our dumbed-down "news" sources know that there are now simply more of the unwashed that simply must participate in ingroup/outgroup thinking, as opposed to agreeing to discourse and when necessary to agree to disagree, and so when raw readership numbers are all that matter matter - they serve the unwashed.
Perhaps it's always been thus in journalism throughout time, and it's up to us to find quality news publications within the noise.
It's a part of the internet phenom we all overlooked until AOL newbies started flooding usenet with complaints that we were on their internet - the net has come through with interactive exchange and is truly egalitarian.
But the unspoken belief that egalitarianism - in short: opportunity - would translate to the opportunity for all comers to step up has proven untrue, when the obvious temptation that's being succumbed to is simply this: in general, people view the information highway not as a mechanism to gain new information that shapes new beliefs and leads to intellectual evolution, but rather as a conduit for quasi-information that supports their existing idiocies.
Harsh perhaps, but too often true.
Microsoft BASIC was hands down the best BASIC to program a PC with in the early 1980s.
That's true but incomplete.
Microsoft BASIC was tied to the IBM-PC's ROM, as I recall. As soon as clones hit the scene, bringing PC prices down and opening the market through the increased consumption that resulted from the lower prices, it was GW-BASIC that ruled the roost. A minor point, as GW-BASIC was also from Microsoft, but an economically important one.
That BASIC story was yet another in the long line of leveraged business strategies employed by Microsoft. This was usually, in my estimation, a combination of Microsoft's business acumen coupled with misjudgments by key competitors.
MS/GW-BASIC - no different, in my opinion.
Consider that MS-BASIC already had a large following first as AppleSoft (Microsoft's Apple ][ BASIC implementation), and later, as MS-BASIC for CP/M.
However - near the time of the original PC, came first the Osborne 1 and then .... the Kaypro.
The Kaypro was an absolutely wonderful CP/M platform, especially powerful because of it's included SBASIC from Topaz - now THAT was a *great* BASIC.
And did Topaz take structured BASIC to the world of the PCs? Like so many other great CP/M products, they relied on the common sense of the marketing realizing that they could more and do it more cheaply and easily on a CP/M platform. (Remember - there were never the number of CP/M users to build that critical mass.)
So - while MS was catapulting BASIC forward - Topaz did nothing.
The inferior BASIC won - because no one else really came to the table to exploit the code base and skills of the previous generation of BASIC programmers.
Anyway - that's how I recall it went down. I could be mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBASIC
Pluto replies:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/8964/