An early report I saw stated that air traffic guided them through some maneuvers before they landed, to ensure that they still had control of the plane (apparently standard procedure in such a situation).
That's the first level reason and is pretty obvious. My point was that there is likely something in Washington law that allows Microsoft to pretend (err, state) that the revenues they are declaring in Nevada are not associated with their activities in Washington (something that would be sort of difficult to do when not dealing with something like software).
Do note that the companies opening the offices in Nevada need to make sure they have good accountants. I'm fairly certain Microsoft is following the letter of the law (or, at least, coming very very close), not just making shit up and paying taxes on the fabrications.
(I'm not saying I think it is a great thing they are doing, just that you are painting a simplified picture, there has to be some reason that they are able to recognize the revenues in Nevada, and I bet the reason is present in Washington state law, and it isn't particularly likely that companies engaged in more material businesses would be able to easily follow along)
There was recently a case in Colorado where someone was getting fined for installing rainwater tanks. See, someone down the river owned the rights to the water that fell on their roof.
In case you don't believe it (there is a pdf there detailing bills to change the law to allow the tanks):
If you can deal with all your waste and grow all your food in a square 35 feet on a side, I will give you a gold star. Make sure not to walk on your neighbors 35 foot box, he is sick of living in it and a little cranky.
No, I was merely sniping at your overly categorical statement. It may well be that the internet is far more economic than the alternatives, but it certainly doesn't preclude them.
(The problem with using intrusions as an argument about the problems of running a private network is that the companies in question don't seem to face any consequences for the intrusions, so they have little or no incentive to actually work to prevent them...)
'only' is a pretty strong word in that particular statement. For instance, imagine if someone ran a network very similar to the internet, except for all of the pesky public access.
Not to belabor the point, as he is already rather overexposed, but Bruce Schneier repeatedly makes the point that funding good investigative police work is also an effective measure (because it is often the case that the bad guys are making mistakes, regardless of the particular vector they have chosen to focus on).
They spoke well of the morning after pill. That does a decent job of dealing with rape (though it doesn't give the woman in question a great deal of time to consider the issue).
This is a reasonable point, but I don't think it is terribly revisionist to claim that I meant "when have unions worked against the interests of their members and for the interests of the general public?".
You can download MS Reader (for Windows) for free. I'm not talking about the comparison just on physical devices, I'm talking about on a computer screen.
It isn't hard at all. But it is easier and smoother and nicer to use an actual ebook format that reflows nicely (try reading the same material in a decently formatted pdf and in a decently formatted MS Reader book and you will understand what I am talking about).
Slashdot Mirror
In the context you speak of, the new thing is the billing.
(The ability to use automated systems to quickly add and remove virtual machines is also an advancement from traditional virtual hosting)
A stewardess ran out of patience.
An early report I saw stated that air traffic guided them through some maneuvers before they landed, to ensure that they still had control of the plane (apparently standard procedure in such a situation).
Was it "How did they do that?" amazement, or was it "Why did they do that?" amazement?
Another way to put it would be to say that Intel supports Linux (this is only a vague impression on my part, but I'm pretty sure I have it right).
Says the demon.
Outlook Express never used PST files (but it could import them).
Snuggie?
ShamWow? (I really can't believe that name...)
Snuggie for Dogs?
You seem to have purchased the sad-sack model.
Does it do anything interesting, or is it just pandering?
(It looks like pandering to me, but I'm basing that on all those huge names in there)
But chaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnggggggge.
Yes, yes, you, the AC above and the moderator that modded that AC funny all got it, that's what I meant by the 'or something'.
That's the first level reason and is pretty obvious. My point was that there is likely something in Washington law that allows Microsoft to pretend (err, state) that the revenues they are declaring in Nevada are not associated with their activities in Washington (something that would be sort of difficult to do when not dealing with something like software).
So don't move to states where you think the people tolerate corrupt politicians.
Or something.
Do note that the companies opening the offices in Nevada need to make sure they have good accountants. I'm fairly certain Microsoft is following the letter of the law (or, at least, coming very very close), not just making shit up and paying taxes on the fabrications.
(I'm not saying I think it is a great thing they are doing, just that you are painting a simplified picture, there has to be some reason that they are able to recognize the revenues in Nevada, and I bet the reason is present in Washington state law, and it isn't particularly likely that companies engaged in more material businesses would be able to easily follow along)
There was recently a case in Colorado where someone was getting fined for installing rainwater tanks. See, someone down the river owned the rights to the water that fell on their roof.
In case you don't believe it (there is a pdf there detailing bills to change the law to allow the tanks):
http://water.state.co.us/
If you can deal with all your waste and grow all your food in a square 35 feet on a side, I will give you a gold star. Make sure not to walk on your neighbors 35 foot box, he is sick of living in it and a little cranky.
No, I was merely sniping at your overly categorical statement. It may well be that the internet is far more economic than the alternatives, but it certainly doesn't preclude them.
(The problem with using intrusions as an argument about the problems of running a private network is that the companies in question don't seem to face any consequences for the intrusions, so they have little or no incentive to actually work to prevent them...)
'only' is a pretty strong word in that particular statement. For instance, imagine if someone ran a network very similar to the internet, except for all of the pesky public access.
Not to belabor the point, as he is already rather overexposed, but Bruce Schneier repeatedly makes the point that funding good investigative police work is also an effective measure (because it is often the case that the bad guys are making mistakes, regardless of the particular vector they have chosen to focus on).
If we follow this line of reasoning, the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.
They spoke well of the morning after pill. That does a decent job of dealing with rape (though it doesn't give the woman in question a great deal of time to consider the issue).
This is a reasonable point, but I don't think it is terribly revisionist to claim that I meant "when have unions worked against the interests of their members and for the interests of the general public?".
You can download MS Reader (for Windows) for free. I'm not talking about the comparison just on physical devices, I'm talking about on a computer screen.
It isn't hard at all. But it is easier and smoother and nicer to use an actual ebook format that reflows nicely (try reading the same material in a decently formatted pdf and in a decently formatted MS Reader book and you will understand what I am talking about).