Isn't fully bought? It isn't a suggestion; they are owned. And both they, and their parent, are corporations, whose sole reason to exist is to make money.
Do you really think MSNBC is some rouge operation within some loose association of corporations, with in-depth objective scathing analysis of their parent companies' shady practices? Or is it more likely that MSNBC and GE simply have common political goals? If that wasn't patently obvious before, here we now have a story that GE's effective tax rate is zero. Shocking I tell you.
You liberal corporate haters are playing right into their hands.
What about this thought: People are real; citizens are real, corporations are not real. They are pieces of paper representing an abstract concept that is supposed to be a contract with society.
Something like: The workers, officers, shareholders, etc, agree to coalesce their individual liabilities and responsibilities into a single legal entity for the purposes of doing business. Whatever it is; it's not a citizen, it can't vote or run for office or whatever. It's not a person and has no rights under our constitution.
And yet the IRS (and thus our government) treats them as first-class citizens, both in diligently taxing them, and in "listening" to them and getting their preferences incorporated into the tax law. But if you think about it, government by the governed would mean just that.
Except that corporations have no way to vote or elect anything; their only recourse for representation is lobbyists and all the influence that literal bank vaults of money can legally buy. Turns out that's a lot of representation. Apparently overly so in the case of GE. Who coulda seen that coming? I wonder if there are other corporations that take advantage of their quasi-citizen status with unlimited funds for lobbying for the sake of, (gasp) profit?
One of the ways we give them that kind of power is by taxing them in the first place. I don't want corporations to be "good citizens". I don't want them to be any kind of citizens at all. I don't want to care what they think or what they are doing "for society". We already have a nice constitutional republic set up for that; everybody gets one vote, secret ballot, all that.
I don't know how exactly you'd shift the tax burden to the people behind the corporations; that's for people smarter than me to figure out. And the political will it would require make this discussion an academic exercise in the first place. Reagan was the last president with any balls, and he supposedly got 35% out of GE.
But I do know this: If Steve Jobs got hit with a tax bill of 39.5% of his share of Apple's profits... Well two things would happen: big time receipts by the IRS; and he'd be on the steps of the capitol tomorrow extolling the virtues of the tea party and calling for tax cuts.
I think you lose your geek card over that. Creating space-time would be part of creating a universe, so logically, the creating deity would exist outside of those. So he/she/it/they wouldn't be "waiting" for, or "Alakazoom"-ing, anything. Everything happened at once; everything is always happening. Plenty of "time" for a big bang to unfold.
A question: why would you presuppose the creator's only end goal was humans? A bit narrow-minded eh. These are big ideas though, so you may get hurt if you're not up to playing with them.
Be that as it may; you say you would not have taken the trouble to build an infinitely complex universe; instead going for the much more ghetto "Humans and a Church" universe. I must say I like the one we got much better. Perhaps creating a sitcom would be a better vocation for you; it could make a decent 30 minute show.
But as far as man's religion being about, well, Man; what else would you expect it to be about?
Finally, one that "gets it". (I see excelsior gets it too). This revolution is moving fast folks, and I'm afraid it's going to catch a lot of us by surprise in the not too distant future. Prior examples off the top of my head: Typesetters, printing guilds, the ability to read and write... (all illegal at some point in history even, for some of us, not so long ago).
So, they're not going to NEED us anymore. Or, has that already happened? Hard to tell when you're right in the middle of it. But make no mistake, we are right there in it.
I'll cut to the chase quick. What "systems" your company really needs to do business will be public facing. I also think thats less systems than you think it is, but whatever. As important as the company's payables file may be, the company doesn't hire a file or a machine; they hire an accountant to be responsible for the company's payables. A sales manager to be responsible for sales, shipping manager types to be responsible for inventory, etc. Are you getting it? 'Cause to be honest, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around where it's going to end up. That payables file is still going to hosted on some box, somewhere,... along with the handful (on the internet, it's a handful if that) of other data your company has. Do they really need this giant IT Dept. for that? I think not. Employees will still need end user support, as people always have and always will to some degree. And it will be convenient for a company to have someone on staff that can quickly help with problematic excel files, bastard projectors from hell, busted printers...
but. The IT Dept. as we know it today is already an anachronism.
This is your answer. Well, it is if you're a company man and not trying to build an IT kingdom. A real IT man will make himself 'indispensable" within a few short months of taking that position. But then he wouldn't have posted here.
I guess I've got some ideas: Mainly, don't spend their money. Provide for the majority of their tech support needs with your salary. One thing I violated that rule on was a switch. When it came time to get one, and I admit I sped up that process a bit, I got a decent managed 3Com (Cisco is too expensive). You know, being alone, if we were to have real network problems, (I'm a general tech, not a networking expert, and they were having some undefined "flakiness") I could bring Intermapper or something up and figure it out. Of course I never really needed managed switch for 50 people (there were older unmanaged 24 and 10 ports also) so take from that what you will. When I did spend their money I tried to buy good stuff that would last.
Oh and about strangers and their laptops. You'll want a firewall too, and have a public open wifi outside of it. Unless you really have to worry about leechers don't password it or anything, and have the ssid be obvious to the name of your company. Honestly, the old WRT54G would do fine for that for 20. (I had a cisco 630 die once and I substituted the venerable linksys for 40 users for the few days it took to get a replacement. You could not tell the difference). The second one, if you have another one, can be on the internal network. And I'd have any hot network ports plugged outside the firewall too. People plug in without asking. Perhaps it shows that I'm not all that confident in my ability to secure the server against a real threat, so keeping the internal network minimal helps.
Well, no; you never truly switched. By your own admission, you "didn't like it". Good for you for giving the mac a go; but the parent was talking about people who like their macs. The bar for those people switching is quite high. For me though, the difference between spending $2000 and $800 on a machine approaches the height of that bar.
But it sounds like Dell is preparing people for computers going up in price. You know they hate the $750 average this past year or two.
Yes you're on the right track here. Mid level and occasionally even low level pot dealers are often real criminals, and working people who get high do a lot to support them. And the volume of pot compared to say, crack, is like a million times. So among the trunk loads of pot you're smuggling, it's trivial to slip in a double handful of crack that's worth more than the pot. You're already going to jail for years over the pot if you get caught; at that level; getting caught with the pot in addition to crack, or guns, or whatever, is not much of an increased deterrent. I'll cut to the chase: Take that away from them, and the price of crack goes up at least 4 fold overnight - probably ten times... That would go a long way towards cleaning up some inner cities, if crack becomes the unobtainium that powdered coke was in the 70s and 80s. Oh, you could get it; but it's simply too expensive for a working person to do for any length of time.
I don''t know about now, but then, you didn't really show up to buy coke without at least $100. (20-30 years ago $100) And you could do that up in a few minutes if you didn't watch it. Even making a decent $300 a week you couldn't really afford that. Once exposed to expensive powdered coke, as a working man, you either let it destroy your life or you stopped messing with it. Kind of self regulating, to a point, due to how expensive it was (is?).
Crack is sold for $10 and $20. (Often, btw, at schools and ghetto street corners, by the same guys peddling weed...) Having such a potent addictive narcotic available so cheap is just devastating, as we see. If the resources we use in the War on Drugs was focused on real narcotics, freed from the much larger volume of weed traveling into and across this country, you would see their effectiveness increase greatly.
And a note on the War on Drugs. When they first started flinging that around (Reagan? not Carter I don't think...); they were talking about Scarface: guys in heavily armed speedboats easily bringing drugs, guns, whatever in from Cuba (or offshore ships) while the Coast Guard shouted at them with megaphones and took pictures. So we had to declare "War" to allow the Coast Guard to carry guns (and use them), and allow the Dade county sheriff to slap a sticker and blue light on a confiscated speedboat and use that to chase them. Then, and now, everybody is for that. We were so for it, a popular TV show ran for a while glamorizing it.
Confiscating and auctioning a pothead's POS ride because he had his weed in the car when he was pulled over for a traffic violation wasn't supposed to be part of the "War on Drugs", neither then or now. But hell, we were closer to pot legalization then than now. That internet town hall Obama did; that was the number one question. Instead of considering the question, he mocked the audience for being stoners and answered with standard bs redirection double-speak. He's cut from the same political cloth Bush and the rest of your lifetime politicians are. And God knows any mainstream conservative candidate will never speak the thought aloud. I have little hope of the situation getting better while the main political fight is over how socialist we want to be. Btw, how does socialism not breed entrenched super-sized government-sanctioned corporations; the ones the bread and butter socialist supposedly is against? A thought...
Yes, it is the drug companies that would stand to lose a lot if pot were legal. And they do have the lobbyists and raw power to heavily influence crap like this. It would be nice if doctors could weigh in with reasoned analysis in a real debate. They might have told you that while pot can be an effective treatment for simple depression, it can be dangerous for the depressive phase of a schizophrenic. Have that paranoia set in while they are vulnerable, and it can push them right over the edge into a full blown bipolar episode. Yet in daily regular doses it appears to "cure" some that are in danger because of family history, past episodes, etc. Obviously, my experience i
Hm. Very interesting on the carbon variations of the good old lead acid battery. I just read a couple of his articles. He's right that it's hard to beat lead acid in bang for the buck, and environmentally; when you recycle them it's fairly easy to get it all back.
But this "new" carbon/lead mix that's going to revolutionize it?
I manufactured lead acid car batteries for a number of years. We put a big old bag of carbon black in every negative paste mix. Looks a lot like toner. I didn't think it was negative paste without it. So color me suspicious.
And, I thought there was something about lead's outer electron shell having a lot of give and take on charge, as a result of lead's high number, that makes it suitable for batteries. (the biggest bitch of lead acid is that lead is damned heavy) So if a purely carbon substrate can hold the same charge as lead, well then they need to get all over that. Btw, they posted an article on the plant's bulletin board about the new pure carbon battery tech that was going to put us out of business in 5 to 10 years - in 1990.
Seems to me the breakthrough will be not so much in ionizing atoms; as in forcing atoms to retain and release electrons while trying to control the heat from such a reaction. It will come more in storing electrons "loose", in bulk as it were. Maybe buckyballs are the answer.;)
It's the fact that you keep linking them:you imply that you would withhold the vaccine if they didn't come to your "Sustainable Population Levels and Theory" class that i guess you would insist be held under an acacia tree. Then you could give out the quinine at the end of the class. Or not, if they didn't pay attention and take good notes maybe. Oh, but a pad and pencil costs 2 days wages...
Sorry I'm picking on you. But both are good things and worthy of the charity of people like you. Although, trying to put myself in some sub-Saharan dude's shoes (painful ropey flip flops?), I'm thinking I'd get in the "prevent malaria" line before the "preach at me like this shit is my fault" line. Maybe that's just me.
Normally you'd be right, but in this case Apple would love to trade some future monthly fees when they're flush with cash anyway for more sales and hype. Plus Apple is Steve, and this is ok with him. He hates AT&T with a passion and plans to buy them out of spite in 5 years anyway.
Apple will drag their feet on this as much as possible without breaching their obligations to AT&T.
Even if they are illegal, they pay taxes because it is withheld from their pay checks. Illegals tend to overpay payroll taxes because although they pay withholding they don't get refunds; they also get social security and Medicare withheld from their wages. Good point. Which is why politicians love them - they pay taxes and get work done with none of that pesky voting and other crap those ungrateful citizens are constantly whining about.
I missed the racism. Maybe it was "each one has 4 mexican kids". Kind of stereotypical but not too far above the average. Explain it to us fucking retards, if you would.
I believe he was making a point about our laws being enforced selectively on a guy who likely was not going to "take" a job from any american, as opposed to illegal mexicans; where every job they take depresses wages and puts one of us out of work. ("us" includes americans of mexican descent, blacks, whites, guest alien workers - everybody).
Not only that, but the fact that they don't (can't) pay taxes and have to go to the emergency room for any medical care means it costs us a lot more than a lost job. Multiply that by the number of kids in the household.
Hell, if anything, a guy like this Dullien raises wages when he comes here to work, and we should be glad to have him. Not my first target in the enforcement of immigration laws.
Better to get this out of the way sooner rather than later. Even if MS showed the world lots of infringing code, it would all get coded around in a matter of weeks. That is the great strength of Linux. That and the fact that it can't be "killed".
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't fully bought? It isn't a suggestion; they are owned. And both they, and their parent, are corporations, whose sole reason to exist is to make money.
Do you really think MSNBC is some rouge operation within some loose association of corporations, with in-depth objective scathing analysis of their parent companies' shady practices? Or is it more likely that MSNBC and GE simply have common political goals? If that wasn't patently obvious before, here we now have a story that GE's effective tax rate is zero. Shocking I tell you.
You liberal corporate haters are playing right into their hands.
Wisdom.
What about this thought: People are real; citizens are real, corporations are not real. They are pieces of paper representing an abstract concept that is supposed to be a contract with society.
Something like: The workers, officers, shareholders, etc, agree to coalesce their individual liabilities and responsibilities into a single legal entity for the purposes of doing business. Whatever it is; it's not a citizen, it can't vote or run for office or whatever. It's not a person and has no rights under our constitution.
And yet the IRS (and thus our government) treats them as first-class citizens, both in diligently taxing them, and in "listening" to them and getting their preferences incorporated into the tax law. But if you think about it, government by the governed would mean just that.
Except that corporations have no way to vote or elect anything; their only recourse for representation is lobbyists and all the influence that literal bank vaults of money can legally buy. Turns out that's a lot of representation. Apparently overly so in the case of GE. Who coulda seen that coming? I wonder if there are other corporations that take advantage of their quasi-citizen status with unlimited funds for lobbying for the sake of, (gasp) profit?
One of the ways we give them that kind of power is by taxing them in the first place. I don't want corporations to be "good citizens". I don't want them to be any kind of citizens at all. I don't want to care what they think or what they are doing "for society". We already have a nice constitutional republic set up for that; everybody gets one vote, secret ballot, all that.
I don't know how exactly you'd shift the tax burden to the people behind the corporations; that's for people smarter than me to figure out. And the political will it would require make this discussion an academic exercise in the first place. Reagan was the last president with any balls, and he supposedly got 35% out of GE.
But I do know this: If Steve Jobs got hit with a tax bill of 39.5% of his share of Apple's profits... Well two things would happen: big time receipts by the IRS; and he'd be on the steps of the capitol tomorrow extolling the virtues of the tea party and calling for tax cuts.
Nice post. It made me speculate that this is why the universe is so stupidly over-the-top more complex than it needs to be: So DNA could form. Heh.
"wait around for 13,000,000,000 years..."
I think you lose your geek card over that. Creating space-time would be part of creating a universe, so logically, the creating deity would exist outside of those. So he/she/it/they wouldn't be "waiting" for, or "Alakazoom"-ing, anything. Everything happened at once; everything is always happening. Plenty of "time" for a big bang to unfold.
A question: why would you presuppose the creator's only end goal was humans? A bit narrow-minded eh. These are big ideas though, so you may get hurt if you're not up to playing with them.
Be that as it may; you say you would not have taken the trouble to build an infinitely complex universe; instead going for the much more ghetto "Humans and a Church" universe. I must say I like the one we got much better. Perhaps creating a sitcom would be a better vocation for you; it could make a decent 30 minute show.
But as far as man's religion being about, well, Man; what else would you expect it to be about?
At most? Well, that's all it takes my friend. But I'll venture that the real question is whether there is any intelligence in "Nature".
I'll spare you the diatribe, and just give you the answer, right here on Slashdot:
"Nature" knows what love is. Thus the universe as we see it. So that love can exist in some tangible reality.
A scientific guy like you can then easily work backwards from there.
Finally, one that "gets it". (I see excelsior gets it too). This revolution is moving fast folks, and I'm afraid it's going to catch a lot of us by surprise in the not too distant future. Prior examples off the top of my head: Typesetters, printing guilds, the ability to read and write... (all illegal at some point in history even, for some of us, not so long ago).
So, they're not going to NEED us anymore. Or, has that already happened? Hard to tell when you're right in the middle of it. But make no mistake, we are right there in it.
I'll cut to the chase quick. What "systems" your company really needs to do business will be public facing. I also think thats less systems than you think it is, but whatever. As important as the company's payables file may be, the company doesn't hire a file or a machine; they hire an accountant to be responsible for the company's payables. A sales manager to be responsible for sales, shipping manager types to be responsible for inventory, etc. Are you getting it? 'Cause to be honest, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around where it's going to end up. That payables file is still going to hosted on some box, somewhere, ... along with the handful (on the internet, it's a handful if that) of other data your company has. Do they really need this giant IT Dept. for that? I think not. Employees will still need end user support, as people always have and always will to some degree. And it will be convenient for a company to have someone on staff that can quickly help with problematic excel files, bastard projectors from hell, busted printers...
but. The IT Dept. as we know it today is already an anachronism.
just another vote for idiot.oh, and um,.. SCARY.
crap, i wasn't logged in...
This is your answer. Well, it is if you're a company man and not trying to build an IT kingdom. A real IT man will make himself 'indispensable" within a few short months of taking that position. But then he wouldn't have posted here.
I guess I've got some ideas: Mainly, don't spend their money. Provide for the majority of their tech support needs with your salary. One thing I violated that rule on was a switch. When it came time to get one, and I admit I sped up that process a bit, I got a decent managed 3Com (Cisco is too expensive). You know, being alone, if we were to have real network problems, (I'm a general tech, not a networking expert, and they were having some undefined "flakiness") I could bring Intermapper or something up and figure it out. Of course I never really needed managed switch for 50 people (there were older unmanaged 24 and 10 ports also) so take from that what you will. When I did spend their money I tried to buy good stuff that would last.
Oh and about strangers and their laptops. You'll want a firewall too, and have a public open wifi outside of it. Unless you really have to worry about leechers don't password it or anything, and have the ssid be obvious to the name of your company. Honestly, the old WRT54G would do fine for that for 20. (I had a cisco 630 die once and I substituted the venerable linksys for 40 users for the few days it took to get a replacement. You could not tell the difference). The second one, if you have another one, can be on the internal network. And I'd have any hot network ports plugged outside the firewall too. People plug in without asking. Perhaps it shows that I'm not all that confident in my ability to secure the server against a real threat, so keeping the internal network minimal helps.
I believe Sandra Day O'Connor quit over that one.
Well, no; you never truly switched. By your own admission, you "didn't like it". Good for you for giving the mac a go; but the parent was talking about people who like their macs. The bar for those people switching is quite high. For me though, the difference between spending $2000 and $800 on a machine approaches the height of that bar.
But it sounds like Dell is preparing people for computers going up in price. You know they hate the $750 average this past year or two.
Yes you're on the right track here. Mid level and occasionally even low level pot dealers are often real criminals, and working people who get high do a lot to support them. And the volume of pot compared to say, crack, is like a million times. So among the trunk loads of pot you're smuggling, it's trivial to slip in a double handful of crack that's worth more than the pot. You're already going to jail for years over the pot if you get caught; at that level; getting caught with the pot in addition to crack, or guns, or whatever, is not much of an increased deterrent. I'll cut to the chase: Take that away from them, and the price of crack goes up at least 4 fold overnight - probably ten times... That would go a long way towards cleaning up some inner cities, if crack becomes the unobtainium that powdered coke was in the 70s and 80s. Oh, you could get it; but it's simply too expensive for a working person to do for any length of time.
I don''t know about now, but then, you didn't really show up to buy coke without at least $100. (20-30 years ago $100) And you could do that up in a few minutes if you didn't watch it. Even making a decent $300 a week you couldn't really afford that. Once exposed to expensive powdered coke, as a working man, you either let it destroy your life or you stopped messing with it. Kind of self regulating, to a point, due to how expensive it was (is?).
Crack is sold for $10 and $20. (Often, btw, at schools and ghetto street corners, by the same guys peddling weed...) Having such a potent addictive narcotic available so cheap is just devastating, as we see. If the resources we use in the War on Drugs was focused on real narcotics, freed from the much larger volume of weed traveling into and across this country, you would see their effectiveness increase greatly.
And a note on the War on Drugs. When they first started flinging that around (Reagan? not Carter I don't think...); they were talking about Scarface: guys in heavily armed speedboats easily bringing drugs, guns, whatever in from Cuba (or offshore ships) while the Coast Guard shouted at them with megaphones and took pictures. So we had to declare "War" to allow the Coast Guard to carry guns (and use them), and allow the Dade county sheriff to slap a sticker and blue light on a confiscated speedboat and use that to chase them. Then, and now, everybody is for that. We were so for it, a popular TV show ran for a while glamorizing it.
Confiscating and auctioning a pothead's POS ride because he had his weed in the car when he was pulled over for a traffic violation wasn't supposed to be part of the "War on Drugs", neither then or now. But hell, we were closer to pot legalization then than now. That internet town hall Obama did; that was the number one question. Instead of considering the question, he mocked the audience for being stoners and answered with standard bs redirection double-speak. He's cut from the same political cloth Bush and the rest of your lifetime politicians are. And God knows any mainstream conservative candidate will never speak the thought aloud. I have little hope of the situation getting better while the main political fight is over how socialist we want to be. Btw, how does socialism not breed entrenched super-sized government-sanctioned corporations; the ones the bread and butter socialist supposedly is against? A thought...
Yes, it is the drug companies that would stand to lose a lot if pot were legal. And they do have the lobbyists and raw power to heavily influence crap like this. It would be nice if doctors could weigh in with reasoned analysis in a real debate. They might have told you that while pot can be an effective treatment for simple depression, it can be dangerous for the depressive phase of a schizophrenic. Have that paranoia set in while they are vulnerable, and it can push them right over the edge into a full blown bipolar episode. Yet in daily regular doses it appears to "cure" some that are in danger because of family history, past episodes, etc. Obviously, my experience i
Hm. Very interesting on the carbon variations of the good old lead acid battery. I just read a couple of his articles. He's right that it's hard to beat lead acid in bang for the buck, and environmentally; when you recycle them it's fairly easy to get it all back.
But this "new" carbon/lead mix that's going to revolutionize it?
I manufactured lead acid car batteries for a number of years. We put a big old bag of carbon black in every negative paste mix. Looks a lot like toner. I didn't think it was negative paste without it. So color me suspicious.
And, I thought there was something about lead's outer electron shell having a lot of give and take on charge, as a result of lead's high number, that makes it suitable for batteries. (the biggest bitch of lead acid is that lead is damned heavy) So if a purely carbon substrate can hold the same charge as lead, well then they need to get all over that. Btw, they posted an article on the plant's bulletin board about the new pure carbon battery tech that was going to put us out of business in 5 to 10 years - in 1990.
Seems to me the breakthrough will be not so much in ionizing atoms; as in forcing atoms to retain and release electrons while trying to control the heat from such a reaction. It will come more in storing electrons "loose", in bulk as it were. Maybe buckyballs are the answer. ;)
It's the fact that you keep linking them:you imply that you would withhold the vaccine if they didn't come to your "Sustainable Population Levels and Theory" class that i guess you would insist be held under an acacia tree. Then you could give out the quinine at the end of the class. Or not, if they didn't pay attention and take good notes maybe. Oh, but a pad and pencil costs 2 days wages...
Sorry I'm picking on you. But both are good things and worthy of the charity of people like you. Although, trying to put myself in some sub-Saharan dude's shoes (painful ropey flip flops?), I'm thinking I'd get in the "prevent malaria" line before the "preach at me like this shit is my fault" line. Maybe that's just me.
"... and you can't ask armed policemen with 20lbs of gear to go hand to hand 1 on 1 with every idiot that is resisting arrest. "
that's exactly what I want them to do. We got in this mess by letting 90lb blondes become police officers. Her only option is to tase or shoot you
Well shit; they're practically begging for it then.
"80% of Iraqi's and 70% of American's want a peacefull, orderly withdrawal"
Not sure about Iraqis, but I'm pretty sure that the % of Americans who want a peaceful, orderly withdrawal as soon as possible approaches 99%.
filemaker.com
Normally you'd be right, but in this case Apple would love to trade some future monthly fees when they're flush with cash anyway for more sales and hype. Plus Apple is Steve, and this is ok with him. He hates AT&T with a passion and plans to buy them out of spite in 5 years anyway.
Apple will drag their feet on this as much as possible without breaching their obligations to AT&T.
It doesn't.
I missed the racism. Maybe it was "each one has 4 mexican kids". Kind of stereotypical but not too far above the average.
Explain it to us fucking retards, if you would.
I believe he was making a point about our laws being enforced selectively on a guy who likely was not going to "take" a job from any american, as opposed to illegal mexicans; where every job they take depresses wages and puts one of us out of work. ("us" includes americans of mexican descent, blacks, whites, guest alien workers - everybody).
Not only that, but the fact that they don't (can't) pay taxes and have to go to the emergency room for any medical care means it costs us a lot more than a lost job. Multiply that by the number of kids in the household.
Hell, if anything, a guy like this Dullien raises wages when he comes here to work, and we should be glad to have him. Not my first target in the enforcement of immigration laws.
fine
it does: it's thee
Better to get this out of the way sooner rather than later. Even if MS showed the world lots of infringing code, it would all get coded around in a matter of weeks. That is the great strength of Linux. That and the fact that it can't be "killed".