#1. Yep, that link says that. Pity it doesn't examine the DATES.:)
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/9872. ph p
Seems that Bush was seen somewhere he wasn't.
#2. Okay, you've gone from claiming that Bush did attend funerals to claiming that OTHER presidents did not attend funerals.
You don't understand this "substantiation" thing, do you? It isn't about what OTHER presidents have done. It is about what BUSH DID and DID NOT DO.
#3. You say: "It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts."
But you had previously stated: "I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for."
So, they feel that the goal is worth risking their lives for, but they get depressed over risking their lives?
#4. "You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do."
No, what I'm doing is showing that the FACTS do not agree with your story. Clinton's policy of continuing the sanctions is what kept Iraq from rebuilding their military. Which means fewer US troops died during the invasion.
The "failure" is that there was no plan for AFTER the invasion.
#5. Which is why Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED.
#1. No, there is no proof. That is why you are unable to provide it.
#2. I'm not the one saying that he did go to any funeral(s). You are. I'm the one saying that there are a lot of stories saying that he did NOT go to any. It is up to you to provide proof that he did.
#3. Yes, 1% is less than a majority. But I still find it strange that you know what the majority feels when by all other counts, troops over there are more likely to kill themselves.
#4. What you said was: "The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this."
Now what you say is "I didn't say Clinton had faulted at all."
So, it was Clinton's fault, but not Clinton's fault. Right.
#5. Yes, there were 5 attacks that succeeded while Clarke was in charge. That does not mean that Clarke is wrong for saying that Bush was not focused enough on terrorism. You are trying to imply that it does.
And so on and so forth. You provide NOTHING to substantiate your claims. The facts are available. Whether you want to believe them or not.
#1. Bush was AWOL. Absent WithOut Leave. He was not at the place he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. It doesn't matter how long Bush spent training, what matters is whether he was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there.
#2. Bush attends funerals? Do you have any support for this statement? Everything I've seen says the opposite. In fact, here's a petition to get him to change: http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/ petition. cfm?itemid=15977
#3. Yet the suicide rate amongst our troops in Iraq is significantly higher than other times. I find it strange how you can know what "most" troops over there believe. Particularly when there are reports of low morale amongst many of them.
#4. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault? But Clinton's policy was what made the invasion so easy. Clinton kept up the sanctions and Iraq was not able to rebuild their weapons. Or did you mean that Clinton was responsible for the lack of planning about how to handle Iraq AFTER the invasion?
#5. Yep, under Clarke, 5 attacks did happen. So, because he wasn't infallible then, he's wrong now? Nice "logic" there.
#6. Whatever. The guy is a registered Republican and worked for Bush the Elder. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get another job in Washington.
#7. No. Halliburton only met the criteria because the criteria was designed to choose Halliburton. A better use would have been to contract with other ARAB companies to do the work.
I see you've noticed the "Question" bit in Microsoft's agenda.
1. Question the "free" argument. Not "show that your product is a better value", just make sure that the QUESTION about "free" is raised. This is too much like the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" FUD.
2. Question the "good enough" argument. Again, this isn't about responding to the "good enough" argument. This is about QUESTIONING it in an attempt to instill some Fear, Uncertainty and/or Doubt.
My favorite item is "Seamless Information Exchange". Third-party studies show that only 75% of data and formating is transferable when using Microsoft's proprietary, undocumented format.
You'd do better just sticking to Notepad or WordPad and ASCII text.
1, 2 and 3 are okay. Subject to each person's experience.
4 is not. Worms and viruses and (to a lesser extent) trojans are NOT distributed equally based upon marketshare.
They propagate because of FLAWS in the SECURITY of the system. And Linux has a better security model than Windows.
Windows has the problems it does because: #1. Microsoft puts software on the system that was not selected. Microsoft does this for a "user friendly" point. But "user friendly" does not equate to "good security".
#2. Microsoft enable services, by default, that are NOT needed. Again, this is for "user friendly" points. But it is bad for security.
#3. Microsoft made it easy to execute apps, even via email. They're finally learning on this one after wave after wave after wave of email trojans have hit their products. Again, this is from a "user friendly" point.
In order for Linux to have the same problems that Microsoft has, Linux would have to have 51% of the desktop, come installed with the same apps on 90% of those desktops AND have security holes in those apps AND be setup to run as root.
How about if we have a new label on all products? Something that tells you how much of the work that went into that product was from US citizens?
This would take some effort and a lot of discussion, but it would be VERY handy in the "pure" capitalistic market that seems to be so popular right now.
There's no reason why the consumer should NOT know who was employed in the creation of a product.
"A techie in the Philippines makes about ten times less than an American doing the same job."
It's called "cost of living". In the US, you can't afford food, shelter and clothing at 1/10th of what you're making now. You might have a job, but you will not be able to keep it very long living in the homeless shelter.
"Basic economic theory states that as more job opportunies open up in those countries, the higher the median salaries will be."
Yep. It's called "inflation". It happens when more capital flows into a region. So they double their income. They're still 20% of your salary which still means "homeless shelter" for you.
"That means a *lot* of people in the world are going to have much better lives."
Probably. They'll have twice as much money as they had before.
"At some point equilibrium will be reached and the outsourcing will wane significantly."
Huh? It will level off and then fall significantly? I don't see that. I see it leveling off. But that's just the race to the bottom of the wage bucket.
"As an American techie, I'm not at all worried about my career. There will always be work here for people like me who are creative, resourceful and motivated."
At $15,000 a year (before taxes). I wouldn't worry so much about a career. I'd worry more about food, shelter and clothing. But that's just me.
"Hopefully that means that much of the chaff in IT will be eliminated; I'll be working with more knowledgable people in my field--the opportunists who got into IT for the quick buck will be off chasing their next white rabbit."
Statistics. There are a LOT more people in India and China and so forth. Statistically, your skills are NOT at their level.
Here, let me put some numbers to that.
You are in population A. There are 1,000 people in population A. You are in the top 90% there. That means that there are 100 people as good or better than you and 900 people who are less talented.
Population B has 10,000 people (10 times more than population A). Their 90% mark is 1,000 people. In other words, their best people are more numerous than your best people.
So, while you're CURRENTLY competing with 100 other people for a good paying job, when you combine both population, you'll be competing with 1,100 people.
And, of that 1,100 people, 1,000 will have expenses lower than your's. So they'll be able to do the work for LESS than you.
So, statistically, you'll have to convince an employer to hire you over someone better qualified and yet pay you MORE than that better qualified person wants.
Death of "Mod Parent Up" posts predicted - film at 11:00.
It isn't even limited to electronic media. Dead tree versions used to publish the same crap. Check the newspapers and magazines in the supermarket check-out line. Many of those don't even limit themselves to some insignificant item, either. They'll edit the photos to make them fit the story.
It's all about generating chatter. Whether on-line or at the water cooler.
But now, on-line means page hits which equates to popularity / ratings which means advertising dollars.
The Color of Money - Tom is the bestest pool player ever.
Cocktail - Tom is the bestest bartender ever.
Days of Thunder - Tom is the bested driver ever.
Mission Impossible 1 - Tom is the bestest spy ever.
Mission Impossible 2 - Tom is the bestest spy ever, again.
Okay, you see the pattern here. You're right. You don't see the character in the movie. I don't know if that's because they don't give him much character depth to work with or what.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those enhancements already violations?
A better scenario would be.....when fetal manipulation is practiced, does that make the person who was manipulated/enhanced ineligible for sports? Particularly because it was done TO him/her instead of BY him/her.
Would there be a test for such?
Would there be a seperate division for enhanced athletes? Would the "pure" athletes lose viewership because of that? Could they sue?
And that's just chemical/bio enhancement. They're still thinking too small and focusing on individuals.
In those ~45 pages, he completely examines the implications of all the time paradoxes that other writers just leave alone.
The short story is so much better than the movie.
In short, the information you have now determines the choice you make now which determines your future.
In order to make a different choice than the one you made because of your knowledge of the future, you'd need NEW knowledge of the NEW future that was based upon your decision.
"Article even mentions he turned a profit reselling the stuff online."
From the article: He's bought fancy knives, leather jackets, stuffed animals, party supplies and software, all via spam, and then created Web sites to sell the items at a profit -- a skill he learned from another piece of spam.
It doesn't say that he HAS sold them at a profit. Just that such was the intent.
You're thinking of the extreme degree. This guy can resist sales pitches. But he feels better if he finds something that he can buy. He's tried to sell some of the stuff before, but he doesn't manage to find the time or energy to do so.
From the article: Good spam, he says, leaves him feeling blessed and telling himself, "I can't believe this really came."
That's psychological. The guy paid $150 for a METAL DETECTOR and he has a bad back.
The simple reasoning behind this is to encourage competition in the belief that competion results in better products and/or lower prices.
Cars are something that are easily understood by most people. You buy a car and you want to get it fixed but the place that fixed your old car can't fix this car because the car manufacturer won't let the mechanic read the computer information in YOUR car.
So, you'll have to pay the prices that the car manufacturer wants you to pay to get your car fixed.
I think will be an easy bill to pass. The average person will see it as a way of saving money.
Which is the problem with this "jobless recovery".
Too many people don't have jobs. People without jobs are NOT paying taxes. People without jobs ARE taking money in the form of unemployment benefits. If someone loses a job, that person goes from a net gain for the system to a net loss for the system.
Bush's theory is that if you give lots of money to rich people, then they'll hire more people and there will be a enough additional people paying taxes to offset the loss of the tax cut.
Except that the people being hired are NOT US citizens in the US. So the government is taking in less money because of the tax cuts and the jobs are going to India so the US citizens aren't being hired so they can't pay into the system to offset the original tax cut.
Now, this means BIGGER profits for the corporations which mean BIGGER profits for the execs of those companies.
But rich people do NOT spend money the same way the average person does. One person buying $500,000 boat is NOT the same as 25 people buying $20,000 cars.
So, tax cuts and increased profits actually yielded ZERO new jobs last month.
There seems to be a very basic flaw in your logic. Your process does not accurately predict events.
Not every problem can be resolved by adding technology. -and- Not every situation is a "problem" in need of new technology.
Paper voting seems to work just fine in most cases. If there is a suspected problem, then the specifics of that (those?) problem(s) need to be discussed.
Does anyone know of any "problems" that are supposed to be addressed by electronic voting?
If he were really into the Tin Foil Hat Club, he'd be calling the local police, FBI, NSA, Secret Service and so forth.
Puh-LEEEEEZZZZ!
Anyone can carry a gun and check into hotels under assumed names. Lots of people carry guns. Lots of people check into hotels under assumed names. Some of them do both.
Anyone can claim that they're doing it for self-defense (or to hide from people).
But until you're calling the cops and FBI and reporting the threats, you're just playing the fantasy.
"He said that he went in there and took it. He was hard up for money for his rent," Wayne Welsh said. "He took them to EB Games in Gulfview Square Mall and sold them...he said that's where they don't do a check and he can sell them without worrying about the police finding out he stole them."
This isn't a random occurrence. He already knew where to go to sell them without any checks.
That indicates that this store has a history of such deals. It seems that the cops should be doing a lot of digging into that store's previous dealings.
The company should put them through a BASIC familiarity course when they're first hired.
This is a phone. Dial "9" and the number to get out. To call someone else in the company, just dial the last 4 digits of their number. We call that their "extension". People can call you on the 1-800-xxx-xxxx number and then type in your "extension" to call you "toll free". But we monitor the bills for the 1-800 number so only use it for work calls.
This is a computer. There is an "on switch" for the "monitor" and the "computer". They are here and here. There is also an on switch for the power strip. It is here. Don't plug anything else into the power strip, ever. This one is only for the computer. The computer will only be usable if all of those are turned on and plugged in. If the computer doesn't turn on and you've checked that it is plugged in and all three pieces are turned on the use the "phone" to call the help desk's "extension". We'll send someone over to fix it.
This is your login screen. This is your username. You will have to change your password every 60 days. Your username goes in this space. Your password goes in this space. Sometimes the machine says you've typed in the wrong name or password. If that happens, check your caps lock key. To the machine, capital letters are different than lower case letters. Machines are like that. If it still has a problem, you might have let your password expire or you've tried too many times to get in with the wrong password. Use the "phone" to call the help desk's "extension" and we'll fix it.
This is a browser. We have it set to "open" our "Intranet page" automatically....and so forth.
Just a day working with their new boss or some other mentor to teach them the basics of using the tools we provide. It prevents so many problems and mis-understandings.
#1. Barratry. You cannot keep suing someone just to harrass them.
#2. Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly. Funding another company just so that company can sue your competitors is illegal.
#3. Case law. SCO can file all the cases it wants. But all those other cases can reference previous cases. So, when SCO loses the IBM case, that information can be used to end other SCO cases.
#4. The legal defense fund setup to help people and companies that are being sued by SCO.
#5. How will SCO know that you're using Linux? So far, they've filed a case against IBM and they're doing two more against companies that had, in the past, signed contracts with SCO. If you haven't worked with SCO in the past, SCO would have to get a search warrant to see if you even use Linux.
You're right about SCO's motivations. Microsoft is paying SCO in an attempt to slow the migration to Linux. It doesn't seem to be working, though. Linux is still increasing its marketshare.
Yes, it is how some business alliances are formed. But not all business alliances are LEGAL. Look up "anti-trust" for help with that.
The issue here is that Microsoft is sending money to SCO through various other agencies in an attempt to "launder" that money. It would be VERY different if Microsoft PUBLICLY sent the money to SCO.
The same as it is different when some company PUBLICLY announces that they will contribute money to the legal defense of anyone sued by SCO.
I'm sure IBM suspected that Microsoft was behind some of the money. But suspecting and evidence are not the same. So what? IBM has to deal with the court case in the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
#1. Yep, that link says that. Pity it doesn't examine the DATES. :)
. ph p
e /
:)
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/9872
Seems that Bush was seen somewhere he wasn't.
#2. Okay, you've gone from claiming that Bush did attend funerals to claiming that OTHER presidents did not attend funerals.
You don't understand this "substantiation" thing, do you? It isn't about what OTHER presidents have done. It is about what BUSH DID and DID NOT DO.
#3. You say: "It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts."
But you had previously stated: "I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for."
So, they feel that the goal is worth risking their lives for, but they get depressed over risking their lives?
#4. "You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do."
No, what I'm doing is showing that the FACTS do not agree with your story. Clinton's policy of continuing the sanctions is what kept Iraq from rebuilding their military. Which means fewer US troops died during the invasion.
The "failure" is that there was no plan for AFTER the invasion.
#5. Which is why Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/clark
The GOP and White House can claim ANYTHING (much as you do). That is, until the information is actually released and the facts are available.
#6. Your link refers to Wesley Clark, not Dick Clarke. Big difference.
#7. You have enough trouble with established facts. I'm not going to get into planning and whether something would have been "better" or not.
#1. No, there is no proof. That is why you are unable to provide it.
#2. I'm not the one saying that he did go to any funeral(s). You are. I'm the one saying that there are a lot of stories saying that he did NOT go to any. It is up to you to provide proof that he did.
#3. Yes, 1% is less than a majority. But I still find it strange that you know what the majority feels when by all other counts, troops over there are more likely to kill themselves.
#4. What you said was: "The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this."
Now what you say is "I didn't say Clinton had faulted at all."
So, it was Clinton's fault, but not Clinton's fault. Right.
#5. Yes, there were 5 attacks that succeeded while Clarke was in charge. That does not mean that Clarke is wrong for saying that Bush was not focused enough on terrorism. You are trying to imply that it does.
And so on and so forth. You provide NOTHING to substantiate your claims. The facts are available. Whether you want to believe them or not.
#1. Bush was AWOL. Absent WithOut Leave. He was not at the place he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. It doesn't matter how long Bush spent training, what matters is whether he was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there.
/ petition. cfm?itemid=15977
#2. Bush attends funerals? Do you have any support for this statement? Everything I've seen says the opposite. In fact, here's a petition to get him to change:
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism
#3. Yet the suicide rate amongst our troops in Iraq is significantly higher than other times. I find it strange how you can know what "most" troops over there believe. Particularly when there are reports of low morale amongst many of them.
#4. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault? But Clinton's policy was what made the invasion so easy. Clinton kept up the sanctions and Iraq was not able to rebuild their weapons. Or did you mean that Clinton was responsible for the lack of planning about how to handle Iraq AFTER the invasion?
#5. Yep, under Clarke, 5 attacks did happen. So, because he wasn't infallible then, he's wrong now? Nice "logic" there.
#6. Whatever. The guy is a registered Republican and worked for Bush the Elder. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get another job in Washington.
#7. No. Halliburton only met the criteria because the criteria was designed to choose Halliburton. A better use would have been to contract with other ARAB companies to do the work.
Good, then we may have budgeted for that. :)
I see you've noticed the "Question" bit in Microsoft's agenda.
1. Question the "free" argument.
Not "show that your product is a better value", just make sure that the QUESTION about "free" is raised. This is too much like the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" FUD.
2. Question the "good enough" argument.
Again, this isn't about responding to the "good enough" argument. This is about QUESTIONING it in an attempt to instill some Fear, Uncertainty and/or Doubt.
My favorite item is "Seamless Information Exchange". Third-party studies show that only 75% of data and formating is transferable when using Microsoft's proprietary, undocumented format.
You'd do better just sticking to Notepad or WordPad and ASCII text.
It is about smacking them in the head to get their attention.
If Microsoft doesn't change its practices, we can see more fines such as this. Eventually, Microsoft will change.
1, 2 and 3 are okay. Subject to each person's experience.
4 is not. Worms and viruses and (to a lesser extent) trojans are NOT distributed equally based upon marketshare.
They propagate because of FLAWS in the SECURITY of the system. And Linux has a better security model than Windows.
Windows has the problems it does because:
#1. Microsoft puts software on the system that was not selected. Microsoft does this for a "user friendly" point. But "user friendly" does not equate to "good security".
#2. Microsoft enable services, by default, that are NOT needed. Again, this is for "user friendly" points. But it is bad for security.
#3. Microsoft made it easy to execute apps, even via email. They're finally learning on this one after wave after wave after wave of email trojans have hit their products. Again, this is from a "user friendly" point.
In order for Linux to have the same problems that Microsoft has, Linux would have to have 51% of the desktop, come installed with the same apps on 90% of those desktops AND have security holes in those apps AND be setup to run as root.
This is NOT just about who has more desktops.
I'm not saying that the Indians are bad.
I'm saying that focusing on how to maximize short term profits is NOT the best agenda for a country's economy.
Check the "riots" in Seattle over the WTO meeting here. We're not just complaining about it.
How about if we have a new label on all products? Something that tells you how much of the work that went into that product was from US citizens?
This would take some effort and a lot of discussion, but it would be VERY handy in the "pure" capitalistic market that seems to be so popular right now.
There's no reason why the consumer should NOT know who was employed in the creation of a product.
"A techie in the Philippines makes about ten times less than an American doing the same job."
It's called "cost of living". In the US, you can't afford food, shelter and clothing at 1/10th of what you're making now. You might have a job, but you will not be able to keep it very long living in the homeless shelter.
"Basic economic theory states that as more job opportunies open up in those countries, the higher the median salaries will be."
Yep. It's called "inflation". It happens when more capital flows into a region. So they double their income. They're still 20% of your salary which still means "homeless shelter" for you.
"That means a *lot* of people in the world are going to have much better lives."
Probably. They'll have twice as much money as they had before.
"At some point equilibrium will be reached and the outsourcing will wane significantly."
Huh? It will level off and then fall significantly? I don't see that. I see it leveling off. But that's just the race to the bottom of the wage bucket.
"As an American techie, I'm not at all worried about my career. There will always be work here for people like me who are creative, resourceful and motivated."
At $15,000 a year (before taxes). I wouldn't worry so much about a career. I'd worry more about food, shelter and clothing. But that's just me.
"Hopefully that means that much of the chaff in IT will be eliminated; I'll be working with more knowledgable people in my field--the opportunists who got into IT for the quick buck will be off chasing their next white rabbit."
Statistics. There are a LOT more people in India and China and so forth. Statistically, your skills are NOT at their level.
Here, let me put some numbers to that.
You are in population A. There are 1,000 people in population A. You are in the top 90% there. That means that there are 100 people as good or better than you and 900 people who are less talented.
Population B has 10,000 people (10 times more than population A). Their 90% mark is 1,000 people. In other words, their best people are more numerous than your best people.
So, while you're CURRENTLY competing with 100 other people for a good paying job, when you combine both population, you'll be competing with 1,100 people.
And, of that 1,100 people, 1,000 will have expenses lower than your's. So they'll be able to do the work for LESS than you.
So, statistically, you'll have to convince an employer to hire you over someone better qualified and yet pay you MORE than that better qualified person wants.
Good luck on that.
Death of "Mod Parent Up" posts predicted - film at 11:00.
It isn't even limited to electronic media. Dead tree versions used to publish the same crap. Check the newspapers and magazines in the supermarket check-out line. Many of those don't even limit themselves to some insignificant item, either. They'll edit the photos to make them fit the story.
It's all about generating chatter. Whether on-line or at the water cooler.
But now, on-line means page hits which equates to popularity / ratings which means advertising dollars.
Top Gun - Tom is the bestest pilot ever.
The Color of Money - Tom is the bestest pool player ever.
Cocktail - Tom is the bestest bartender ever.
Days of Thunder - Tom is the bested driver ever.
Mission Impossible 1 - Tom is the bestest spy ever.
Mission Impossible 2 - Tom is the bestest spy ever, again.
Okay, you see the pattern here. You're right. You don't see the character in the movie. I don't know if that's because they don't give him much character depth to work with or what.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those enhancements already violations?
A better scenario would be.....when fetal manipulation is practiced, does that make the person who was manipulated/enhanced ineligible for sports? Particularly because it was done TO him/her instead of BY him/her.
Would there be a test for such?
Would there be a seperate division for enhanced athletes? Would the "pure" athletes lose viewership because of that? Could they sue?
And that's just chemical/bio enhancement. They're still thinking too small and focusing on individuals.
In those ~45 pages, he completely examines the implications of all the time paradoxes that other writers just leave alone.
The short story is so much better than the movie.
In short, the information you have now determines the choice you make now which determines your future.
In order to make a different choice than the one you made because of your knowledge of the future, you'd need NEW knowledge of the NEW future that was based upon your decision.
From the article: He's bought fancy knives, leather jackets, stuffed animals, party supplies and software, all via spam, and then created Web sites to sell the items at a profit -- a skill he learned from another piece of spam.
It doesn't say that he HAS sold them at a profit. Just that such was the intent.
From the article: Good spam, he says, leaves him feeling blessed and telling himself, "I can't believe this really came."
That's psychological. The guy paid $150 for a METAL DETECTOR and he has a bad back.
The simple reasoning behind this is to encourage competition in the belief that competion results in better products and/or lower prices.
Cars are something that are easily understood by most people. You buy a car and you want to get it fixed but the place that fixed your old car can't fix this car because the car manufacturer won't let the mechanic read the computer information in YOUR car.
So, you'll have to pay the prices that the car manufacturer wants you to pay to get your car fixed.
I think will be an easy bill to pass. The average person will see it as a way of saving money.
to further the copyright protections of the Disney Corporation.
Which is the problem with this "jobless recovery".
Too many people don't have jobs. People without jobs are NOT paying taxes. People without jobs ARE taking money in the form of unemployment benefits. If someone loses a job, that person goes from a net gain for the system to a net loss for the system.
Bush's theory is that if you give lots of money to rich people, then they'll hire more people and there will be a enough additional people paying taxes to offset the loss of the tax cut.
Except that the people being hired are NOT US citizens in the US. So the government is taking in less money because of the tax cuts and the jobs are going to India so the US citizens aren't being hired so they can't pay into the system to offset the original tax cut.
Now, this means BIGGER profits for the corporations which mean BIGGER profits for the execs of those companies.
But rich people do NOT spend money the same way the average person does. One person buying $500,000 boat is NOT the same as 25 people buying $20,000 cars.
So, tax cuts and increased profits actually yielded ZERO new jobs last month.
There seems to be a very basic flaw in your logic. Your process does not accurately predict events.
Not every problem can be resolved by adding technology.
-and-
Not every situation is a "problem" in need of new technology.
Paper voting seems to work just fine in most cases. If there is a suspected problem, then the specifics of that (those?) problem(s) need to be discussed.
Does anyone know of any "problems" that are supposed to be addressed by electronic voting?
If he were really into the Tin Foil Hat Club, he'd be calling the local police, FBI, NSA, Secret Service and so forth.
Puh-LEEEEEZZZZ!
Anyone can carry a gun and check into hotels under assumed names. Lots of people carry guns. Lots of people check into hotels under assumed names. Some of them do both.
Anyone can claim that they're doing it for self-defense (or to hide from people).
But until you're calling the cops and FBI and reporting the threats, you're just playing the fantasy.
"He said that he went in there and took it. He was hard up for money for his rent," Wayne Welsh said. "He took them to EB Games in Gulfview Square Mall and sold them...he said that's where they don't do a check and he can sell them without worrying about the police finding out he stole them."
This isn't a random occurrence. He already knew where to go to sell them without any checks.That indicates that this store has a history of such deals. It seems that the cops should be doing a lot of digging into that store's previous dealings.
The company should put them through a BASIC familiarity course when they're first hired.
...and so forth.
This is a phone. Dial "9" and the number to get out. To call someone else in the company, just dial the last 4 digits of their number. We call that their "extension". People can call you on the 1-800-xxx-xxxx number and then type in your "extension" to call you "toll free". But we monitor the bills for the 1-800 number so only use it for work calls.
This is a computer. There is an "on switch" for the "monitor" and the "computer". They are here and here. There is also an on switch for the power strip. It is here. Don't plug anything else into the power strip, ever. This one is only for the computer. The computer will only be usable if all of those are turned on and plugged in. If the computer doesn't turn on and you've checked that it is plugged in and all three pieces are turned on the use the "phone" to call the help desk's "extension". We'll send someone over to fix it.
This is your login screen. This is your username. You will have to change your password every 60 days. Your username goes in this space. Your password goes in this space. Sometimes the machine says you've typed in the wrong name or password. If that happens, check your caps lock key. To the machine, capital letters are different than lower case letters. Machines are like that. If it still has a problem, you might have let your password expire or you've tried too many times to get in with the wrong password. Use the "phone" to call the help desk's "extension" and we'll fix it.
This is a browser. We have it set to "open" our "Intranet page" automatically.
Just a day working with their new boss or some other mentor to teach them the basics of using the tools we provide. It prevents so many problems and mis-understandings.
#1. Barratry. You cannot keep suing someone just to harrass them.
#2. Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly. Funding another company just so that company can sue your competitors is illegal.
#3. Case law. SCO can file all the cases it wants. But all those other cases can reference previous cases. So, when SCO loses the IBM case, that information can be used to end other SCO cases.
#4. The legal defense fund setup to help people and companies that are being sued by SCO.
#5. How will SCO know that you're using Linux? So far, they've filed a case against IBM and they're doing two more against companies that had, in the past, signed contracts with SCO. If you haven't worked with SCO in the past, SCO would have to get a search warrant to see if you even use Linux.
You're right about SCO's motivations. Microsoft is paying SCO in an attempt to slow the migration to Linux. It doesn't seem to be working, though. Linux is still increasing its marketshare.
If it can be shown that Microsoft was funding SCO's attack on Linux......
But that Microsoft did not just outright BUY the entire company and pursue the case on their own, with their own lawyers.....
Then Linux wins big Big BIG in the marketing department.
There won't be any question on the legality of Linux because even Microsoft didn't have the balls to take on Linux in the courts.
Yes, it is how some business alliances are formed. But not all business alliances are LEGAL. Look up "anti-trust" for help with that.
The issue here is that Microsoft is sending money to SCO through various other agencies in an attempt to "launder" that money. It would be VERY different if Microsoft PUBLICLY sent the money to SCO.
The same as it is different when some company PUBLICLY announces that they will contribute money to the legal defense of anyone sued by SCO.
I'm sure IBM suspected that Microsoft was behind some of the money. But suspecting and evidence are not the same. So what? IBM has to deal with the court case in the courts.