While SOX, etc certainly makes it's presence known, I don't think it's a problem for using open source. Google is bound by SOX, for a minor example. They seem to use a bit of open source stuff. My company has a pretty conservative IT team (much to my annoyance) but we're running Linux on a number of production systems. Granted, it's SuSE, contaminated with a bunch of apparently useless IBM monitor ware, but we haven't had any compliance issues.
How about they don't kill the app, but just cut you off from the network, so that the malware app on your phone doesn't damage the network? Would you prefer that? Because that's their alternative. And I bet you they have that alternative as well, but haven't publicized it.
MSFT can only deduct their direct inventory costs for the donated software, which is the cost of the media and box. For Office, for example, they probably get to deduct about $30/copy. When any business donates inventory, they get to deduct only their cost basis in the inventory, or fair market value, whichever is lower. For MSFT, their inventory cost for a copy of Office is trivial.
The issue is that, when you donate anything, you get to deduct your cost basis or fair market value, whichever is less. When MSFT donates software, they can only deduct the cost of the media, and direct costs of delivery.
So, while you may grant rights to your software to some organization, you can only deduct any direct, receipted, out of pocket costs for getting the software working at the donee, but you don't get to deduct anything for your software, because your cost basis is zero. As far as the tax code is concerned, your labor is free.
While I don't argue with your analysis, it -is- notable that, despite the US president being possible the most antagonistic target that Bin Laden and co could hope for, the rate of terrorist acts and (as far as we can tell) discovered but interrupted plots has declined significantly around the world. One has to wonder what that means. It may mean that the supply of cannon fodder is running low.
um, straw man. Who says I'm or we're laying back on the rest of my/our rights? As someone's sig sez, "soap box, ballot box, ammo box. Use in that order".
There are, by recent counts, 100,000,000 guns or more in this country. There are some 3-5,000,000 members of the military ( I don't couch for the number, but I think the magnitude is right).
In the unlikely event of a military coup, there is no reason at all not to think that an aroused citizenry could prove to be an intractable barrier.
And of course the existing system is stable, perfect, has adequate capacity, and supports efficient work flows for the primary revenue function of the largest (for now) economy in the world. Right?
Sometimes, in software, as in life, you don't get to wait for 'perfect'.
Seriously, having also looked at my fair share of feelthy pictures for as long as I've been on the net, I've also never come across kiddie porn. Let's face it, people who get off on pre-puberty sex are rare. Very rare. They're also aware that they're targets. At this point in the game, I'd have to suspect that the pervs are pretty sophisticated about crypto already, so I don't see this affecting them.
Who cares what 70% of americans are for? 50% of americans are dumber than the median - why should we care what they think?
The job of our elected government is to figure out what the right answer is and do that for us, EVEN IF ITS UNPOPULAR. Now, they suck at that as well, but we should be electing people that we think are competent and smart, not who would make good drinking buddies. We did that with Bush, and look what it got us.
And Obama says that most small business don't make $250,000 a year. Do some math. $250,000 / 365 = $684.93 a day. That's a couple of new tires for an auto business or 50 customers for a restaraunt or 1 cake for "Ace of Cakes". I think a LOT of small business take in more than $250,000 a year!
If you're going to lecture on economics, perhaps you should learn the difference between sales and income. You can have 10,000,000/year or 10,000,000,000/year in sales and LOSE money, and therefore owe no income tax. You gotta know the expense side.
Obama is right, the majority of small business owners clear much less than $250,000 a year.
Further, if a business hires workers or purchases goods/invests, that reduces their taxable income. You can avoid taxes, and increase future income by hiring. So it's not at all clear that higher taxes discourages investment. It depends highly on the structure of the tax and the situation of the business, as any accountant or economist can tell you.
And yes, I have degrees and experience in both disciplines.
Well, I'm gonna vote for Obama, but McCain's behavior and comportment after he was captured speaks well for him. He is the son of a then active admiral in the navy, and was offered special treatment in the prison camps to curry favor in negotiations from washington. He declined it and stayed with the other prisoners, and siffered greivously for some years as a result.
I would have voted for him had he chosen a reasonable veep choice. But I won't contribute to a female GW having a crack at the top office in the land.
What McCain should have done was chose Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as a Veep.
Or to be more precise, the water projects in the east half of Washington State, funded by federal taxdollars, benefit about 1100 farm families directly.
Now, how about health care? Obama says he wants to reduce costs, but the details of how he plans to do this seem to be the exact opposite. Increased mandates for coverage. Reduce competition. Increase the role of government.
Check out the cost percentage for administration of medicare, and then check out the financial statements for a health insurance provider. When I last did this, I believe medicare delivered 85% of program dollars as benefits, while the insurance company delivered 69%. Those sales and marketing costs and executive salaries add up.
Slashdot Mirror
While SOX, etc certainly makes it's presence known, I don't think it's a problem for using open source. Google is bound by SOX, for a minor example. They seem to use a bit of open source stuff. My company has a pretty conservative IT team (much to my annoyance) but we're running Linux on a number of production systems. Granted, it's SuSE, contaminated with a bunch of apparently useless IBM monitor ware, but we haven't had any compliance issues.
How about they don't kill the app, but just cut you off from the network, so that the malware app on your phone doesn't damage the network? Would you prefer that? Because that's their alternative. And I bet you they have that alternative as well, but haven't publicized it.
MSFT can only deduct their direct inventory costs for the donated software, which is the cost of the media and box. For Office, for example, they probably get to deduct about $30/copy. When any business donates inventory, they get to deduct only their cost basis in the inventory, or fair market value, whichever is lower. For MSFT, their inventory cost for a copy of Office is trivial.
If you do that, you need to declare the amount of the bill as income and pay tax on it.
The issue is that, when you donate anything, you get to deduct your cost basis or fair market value, whichever is less. When MSFT donates software, they can only deduct the cost of the media, and direct costs of delivery.
So, while you may grant rights to your software to some organization, you can only deduct any direct, receipted, out of pocket costs for getting the software working at the donee, but you don't get to deduct anything for your software, because your cost basis is zero. As far as the tax code is concerned, your labor is free.
And that there are a cubic buttload of bin-Ladens. Its an enormous family.
While I don't argue with your analysis, it -is- notable that, despite the US president being possible the most antagonistic target that Bin Laden and co could hope for, the rate of terrorist acts and (as far as we can tell) discovered but interrupted plots has declined significantly around the world. One has to wonder what that means. It may mean that the supply of cannon fodder is running low.
um, straw man. Who says I'm or we're laying back on the rest of my/our rights? As someone's sig sez, "soap box, ballot box, ammo box. Use in that order".
AR-15 is a better choice, because then you can use your enemy's ammo.
There are, by recent counts, 100,000,000 guns or more in this country. There are some 3-5,000,000 members of the military ( I don't couch for the number, but I think the magnitude is right).
In the unlikely event of a military coup, there is no reason at all not to think that an aroused citizenry could prove to be an intractable barrier.
Populace = 280,000,000. Military = ? 3,000,000? Most of whom are overseas, leaving what, 20%, or 600,000?
I think revolution is easily feasible. The gun owning population is easily in excess of 50,000,000 in the nation.
screwups are NOT acceptable.
And of course the existing system is stable, perfect, has adequate capacity, and supports efficient work flows for the primary revenue function of the largest (for now) economy in the world. Right?
Sometimes, in software, as in life, you don't get to wait for 'perfect'.
The security didn't catch this guy, and the passengers subdued him. I'm a little confused as to your point.
the only thing new is better cockpit doors and passengers who'd rather die than get high-jacked.
Which is all we need. I want my pocket knife back.
You've clearly forgotten about Tracy Lords. ;-)
Seriously, having also looked at my fair share of feelthy pictures for as long as I've been on the net, I've also never come across kiddie porn. Let's face it, people who get off on pre-puberty sex are rare. Very rare. They're also aware that they're targets. At this point in the game, I'd have to suspect that the pervs are pretty sophisticated about crypto already, so I don't see this affecting them.
Who cares what 70% of americans are for? 50% of americans are dumber than the median - why should we care what they think?
The job of our elected government is to figure out what the right answer is and do that for us, EVEN IF ITS UNPOPULAR. Now, they suck at that as well, but we should be electing people that we think are competent and smart, not who would make good drinking buddies. We did that with Bush, and look what it got us.
And Obama says that most small business don't make $250,000 a year. Do some math. $250,000 / 365 = $684.93 a day. That's a couple of new tires for an auto business or 50 customers for a restaraunt or 1 cake for "Ace of Cakes". I think a LOT of small business take in more than $250,000 a year!
If you're going to lecture on economics, perhaps you should learn the difference between sales and income. You can have 10,000,000/year or 10,000,000,000/year in sales and LOSE money, and therefore owe no income tax. You gotta know the expense side.
Obama is right, the majority of small business owners clear much less than $250,000 a year.
Further, if a business hires workers or purchases goods/invests, that reduces their taxable income. You can avoid taxes, and increase future income by hiring. So it's not at all clear that higher taxes discourages investment. It depends highly on the structure of the tax and the situation of the business, as any accountant or economist can tell you.
And yes, I have degrees and experience in both disciplines.
Don't know why you're modded troll. I'm with you.
Well, I'm gonna vote for Obama, but McCain's behavior and comportment after he was captured speaks well for him. He is the son of a then active admiral in the navy, and was offered special treatment in the prison camps to curry favor in negotiations from washington. He declined it and stayed with the other prisoners, and siffered greivously for some years as a result.
I would have voted for him had he chosen a reasonable veep choice. But I won't contribute to a female GW having a crack at the top office in the land.
What McCain should have done was chose Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as a Veep.
You mean like the test the french developed for HIV in blood? Listed here?
Because she obviously was asking for it, you ignorant clod!
Or to be more precise, the water projects in the east half of Washington State, funded by federal taxdollars, benefit about 1100 farm families directly.
Now, how about health care? Obama says he wants to reduce costs, but the details of how he plans to do this seem to be the exact opposite. Increased mandates for coverage. Reduce competition. Increase the role of government.
Check out the cost percentage for administration of medicare, and then check out the financial statements for a health insurance provider. When I last did this, I believe medicare delivered 85% of program dollars as benefits, while the insurance company delivered 69%. Those sales and marketing costs and executive salaries add up.
Yes. Check any cake mix box.
The primary reason for this is access to power from the John Day Dam, and a site that is removed from seismic and weather issues.