Encouraging people to keep their money under their mattress, rather than buy needed products, would provide a stiff kick to the economy's figurative balls.
Ideally they won't keep it under the mattress, they'll give it to a bank, who [in exchange for a small amount of interest] will use it to provide venture capital to new companies to keep the economy moving! Now whether this works in practice is another thing all together:)
So you are saying if the government stops the 'black projects' the tax cheats will pay up?
Well, that's certainly one option, however I'm leaning towards the possibility that they are not paying their taxes because they like money, not because they share your weird ideological views.
What about linux apps which aren't released open source? If linux reaches a desktop majority, it will have a wealth of software available to it, only a small portion of which will be open sourced.
until suddenly one day, when linux has superior market share, and the spyware writers and virus writers flock to the platform with a vengeance.
Your technical superiority doesn't make you immune, the fact that you aren't a big target audience makes you immune.
So, what you're saying is that because you're under-resourced it's taking too long to do your roll-out. And this is microsoft's fault some how?!?!???!??
PS: The company I work for did 50K desktops in 3 years.
How about "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will defend their homes and lives against burglars, muggers, and home invasions - they do this by shooting everyone in their family, ensuring they have nothing of value to take!"
It saddens me to think that American companies no longer care about the american people. And that our government turns a blind eye to this just accentuates that feeling.
Well, that's the thing, these are no longer 'american' companies. The share market means that they could be owned by anybody. Look at Microsoft, it is large enough now that it owes alligience to nobody. It's fighting the EU at the moment, not just one country, but quite a few!
My comment was directed at a future in which only criminals had guns (hence the "KNOWS you _don't_ part). However, if you're talking about modern day, you're still wrong. Guns are noisy and attract attention. Assuming he is in a position to shoot you in the back of the head without you noticing, he's just as easily positioned to simply take the gun/money/whatever. If witnesses are a problem, a couple whacks over the head with the barrel still make less noise than discharging it.
Well, what do the NRA believe with regard to silencers? Are they a legitimate hunting tool needed to protect my family?
Oh sure, I'm not saying hunting isn't the best thing since sliced bread. However, my point was that there is a huge difference between hunting and slaughterhouse killing. If you care about animals being in pain and etc.
No one would intentionally gutshot an animal, since doing so would cause it to immediately bolt and force the hunter to track, and likely lose, the animal.
But why does intent matter? The fact is: Being shot out in the wild is more painful to an animal then being killed in a slaughterhouse, so there is no hypocracy in being pro-meat and anti-hunting.
Although this is an academic argument anyway, since I don't think I could care less about hunting if a bunch of greenpeace hippies ran past me screaming MEAT IS MURDER while poking me in the eye with a burnt stick.
If you've ever eaten a steak or a hamburger or a sausage or a ham sandwich or a chicken, you either consider hunting moral or you're a raging hypocrite.
I disagree, the meat for my sandwich wasn't hunted. It was killed at least pseudo-humanely in a slaughterhouse, rather then being gutshot [so that you have a usable head to mount] and dragging itself a few hundred meters before dying after it's insides fell out.
People seem to forget that the % of people who die in wars or crime is lower now, than it was before guns.
Welcome to the world of selective service, where there is no need for every peasant with a pitchfork to go off to work and we actually put a lot of time and money into training the fraction of the population that decide to be soldiers.
THIS is the reason why the percentage is much lower, not some great thing to do with guns.
Slashdot Mirror
What did you do for the other 8 minutes?
Ideally they won't keep it under the mattress, they'll give it to a bank, who [in exchange for a small amount of interest] will use it to provide venture capital to new companies to keep the economy moving! Now whether this works in practice is another thing all together :)
Well, that's certainly one option, however I'm leaning towards the possibility that they are not paying their taxes because they like money, not because they share your weird ideological views.
PS: SPEAKS YOU THE ENGLISH?
Sure, but you replied to me.. and I was talking about in the future. Do you frequently ignore the topic at hand when you reply to people? :P
What about linux apps which aren't released open source? If linux reaches a desktop majority, it will have a wealth of software available to it, only a small portion of which will be open sourced.
until suddenly one day, when linux has superior market share, and the spyware writers and virus writers flock to the platform with a vengeance. Your technical superiority doesn't make you immune, the fact that you aren't a big target audience makes you immune.
You haven't read the book then, there are more ways to serve then join the military. You could always do space suit testing on Io.
I bet it doesn't take into account road fatalities.. in fact, that alcohol number looks very low too. I bet it doesn't either. :P
PS: The company I work for did 50K desktops in 3 years.
Sure, but that just means your swimming pool fencing laws are stupid too.
On behalf of Australia I have to apologise to you all. I fear s/he may be the most stupid person in Australia. Once again, my most sincere apologies.
Well, that's pretty much every company in the world. Last year friends of mine applied for jobs requiring 5 years dot net experience. :P
How about "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will defend their homes and lives against burglars, muggers, and home invasions - they do this by shooting everyone in their family, ensuring they have nothing of value to take!"
The government isn't threatening to take away your servers, just cancel the DNS entry.
Not sorry enough.
Well, that's the thing, these are no longer 'american' companies. The share market means that they could be owned by anybody. Look at Microsoft, it is large enough now that it owes alligience to nobody. It's fighting the EU at the moment, not just one country, but quite a few!
So he's fine to setup a big screen on your sidewalk? You tool. :P
Well, what do the NRA believe with regard to silencers? Are they a legitimate hunting tool needed to protect my family?
Oh sure, I'm not saying hunting isn't the best thing since sliced bread. However, my point was that there is a huge difference between hunting and slaughterhouse killing. If you care about animals being in pain and etc.
EH?
But why does intent matter? The fact is: Being shot out in the wild is more painful to an animal then being killed in a slaughterhouse, so there is no hypocracy in being pro-meat and anti-hunting.
Although this is an academic argument anyway, since I don't think I could care less about hunting if a bunch of greenpeace hippies ran past me screaming MEAT IS MURDER while poking me in the eye with a burnt stick.
I disagree, the meat for my sandwich wasn't hunted. It was killed at least pseudo-humanely in a slaughterhouse, rather then being gutshot [so that you have a usable head to mount] and dragging itself a few hundred meters before dying after it's insides fell out.
Surely he is more likely to just shoot you in the back of the head and take your gun. After all, then he has 2 guns, one of which is 'clean'.
Welcome to the world of selective service, where there is no need for every peasant with a pitchfork to go off to work and we actually put a lot of time and money into training the fraction of the population that decide to be soldiers.
THIS is the reason why the percentage is much lower, not some great thing to do with guns.
ISS? YUO FAIL IT!