Thank you, that was the one I was talking about. It was Cambridge not oxford, my bad. It made the headlines because of this http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14...

equivalent (as in mathematical equivalence relation, mind you "equal" is one) would be more suited

it's not "either or". All cards (at least where I live) have "the chip", they require a PIN. Not 100% safe but beats the magnetic strip (there was some fuss about this few years back, as some grade students --from Oxford if not mistaken-- found a way beat the system, the backers didn't like it.
If the terminal support the chip and the card has one, any attempt to use the mag strip is refused systematically (they all still have the mag strip). Some of them have nfc (or whatever it is called), mostly credit cards, if used this way no need for a PIN and it's exclusively for tiny transactions (less that $10 I think).

Of course there no reason to allow him. The response was very good/fast. But that's irrelevant, he wasn't given the opportunity he had it, and I doubt the street was empty (Ottawa is a dull -but beautiful- city, but still, not completely empty).

I didn't read much, on the event, when it happened (caught it on reddit by mistake), I turned on the TV to watch on CBC. Something is bugging me though, as you explained it the guy was quickly and switfly disposed of, before that, he should have had the chance to shoot anyone ( and it good thing he didn't), but why (genuine question)????

Again, tribal and authoritarian are not exactly the same thing (meaning if they were 2 sets they are different sets). There may be a correlation though. What was that thing about correlation and the other thing called cause/effect?

and you;re absolutely right, int that we're not ready for anything like that. But that's shouldn't be an obstacle to evolve in that direction!
the middle east has nothing to do with though (the situation has a lot of explanation, the lack of authority is not one of them).

anarchy and chaos are different things too. Just saying.

it's not about who has the longest proverbial dick. it's not about, it just worked for you, or a bunch of other people. Where it works, well, it works there's nothing more. The big hairy problem is when it doesn't, in the case of sysv init (or openRC) the places to look for troubles are few an easy to read and modify.
Take for For example the *KIT set, theses are very nice additions that simplified the life of a lot of people (including me), but only when everything was working, it stops working and hello 3/4 hours wasted to find out WHY exactly it wasn't working, b/c of the lack of documentation (a problem that was corrected lately) and cryptic messages if any at all. Source code is documentation you say? yeah sure, if you're home with nothing to do it's good, but a sysadmin with an already understaffed department doesn't have that luxury. You, me at home is one story, we have time, and are dealing with ONE system that is ours, managing hundreds of desktops, users and servers is an other beast all together!
the fact that technical committees of multiple distributions adopted systemd doesn't mean anything unless the reasoning behind it is bullet proof (I don't know as I wasn't there and didn't bother looking for it, did you?).

BTW, I'm not a us citizen, I'm Canadian.

In both scenarios, the family's income as a whole takes a hit, with one scenario requiring less work
In the case of these corporation it doesn't, they take the income spread it over different tax jurisdictions to minimize taxes for the same income.
A loophole is an unintended consequence of some rule. while exploiting the existence is not illegal, it certainly goes against the original intent of said rule. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seams to me that taxing corporation is not the way it should go. Let the corporate entity be Tax those that derive income from that: shareholders, as you'd tax anyone else (say the janitor of said corporation).
(where I live daycare fees are tax deductible, I don't know what it yields as our son doesn't go to daycare, we are lucky enough that the grandparents live near by)

Well, technically there is (at least where I live). Even with 0 revenue, there is a tax declaration at the end of the year with a 0 balance.

Exactly, the whole point of that exercise is to determine if going to work is worth it, not paying less taxes. If, as you said, she end up poring her whole income in daycare there's nothing to gain (monetarily speaking that is, some may prefer to work). That is why I said bad example.

That's why I used "probably". (the certain events are a subset of probable events).

Again, that was exactly my point.

"Dictionary definition" is not slang/street talk, AFAIK, may be I'm mistaken? With that said, I wasn't trying to redefine legally "tax evasion", or implying it was fact. If it wasn't clear enough, I'm sorry. That was my humble opinion. Let me rephrase is : doing so, in MY book is tax evasion.

I'm "cringing in pain" thinking of the fact that they exist.