Slashdot Mirror

Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale?

I would, if it were true. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50P5XZ20090126

Well let's see. The Taiwanese LCD producer Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) agreed to pay $220 million for violations over 5 years (2001-2006) which comes up to $44 million per year of violations.

CMO is a publicly traded company, for 2009 their net sales up to November has been almost $30 billion dollars.

CMO's market cap is $150 billion dollars.

I think it's safe to say that $44 million dollars a year is a drop in the bucket for them.

The other $640 million is divided across 5 other companies so far, which sets them about $128 million dollars each, or $25.6 million dollars a year.

Justice is served!

Who cares?
Honestly I'm not sure I like this ruling. If the entire market can collude to get it done, then there's probably more than just a little reason for it to happen. IE, ALL producers of panels had sunk capital costs with the hope of recouping them, but weren't going to be able to.
My concern: going forward, they won't be as bold in researching, investing in, and bringing to market new technologies.
My 24" $300 8-bit P-MVA (aka NOT TN) panel I bought at least a year ago from ChiMei...is still an awesome deal and I'd buy it again.
I think there are bigger guys we should be going after than LCD Panel makers...I mean seriously. Pick on someone your own size. Like Microsoft.

Well let's see. The Taiwanese LCD producer Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) agreed to pay $220 million for violations over 5 years (2001-2006) which comes up to $44 million per year of violations.

CMO is a publicly traded company, for 2009 their net sales up to November has been almost $30 billion dollars.

CMO's market cap is $150 billion dollars.

I think it's safe to say that $44 million dollars a year is a drop in the bucket for them.

The other $640 million is divided across 5 other companies so far, which sets them about $128 million dollars each, or $25.6 million dollars a year.

Justice is served!

Have you lived in a cave? US v. MS is a big case, and so was the EU case: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1039839820070917. Only Intel have managed to get bigger fines from the EU Commission (and rightly so).

It is not a good decision to try and convince your users to use your service less. AT&T may want to re-think this, as their heaviest users are possibly also the most loyal, least price-sensitive, and more likely to upgrade.

Then again, if ditching 3% of your users gives you a 40% capacity gain, the choice is obvious. They are gone.

But this is about more than just bytes. If there are geographic concentrations of heavy users, then billing is a way to smite those who are causing others some pain. It sure is easier than managing your network correctly, or expanding capacity, or getting the lower-volume users to pony up more money for nothing.

I'll be watching to see how AT&T can convince users to use less.

Of course, this is the beginning of the net neutrality fight on cell networks. Expect AT&T to start blaming content providers for making such attractive nuisances. Then the phone manufacturers for making such demanding devices.

Except for Apple. They will be blameless, since AT&T sees them as the source of revenue that makes it all worthwhile.

Pathetique. I wonder how many executives at AT&T remember the Sprint debacle?

No it is not. Here is an article from someone who shares your own view also responding to my post. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL0490971420080604 He has a 9.6% stake (~$12M) in a company whose total worth is estimated at ~$120M. The value of the company would have to increase its value by more than 100 for him to reach billionaire status. Not impossible, but hardly a slam dunk.

But quite likely if cap and trade becomes law. He also has stakes in several "green" energy companies.

No you just implied it.

I implied no such thing. If you actually read my first post you'll see that I said both he and the mega-corps love the idea of all of this global warming alarmism because it benefits both groups. I stated they both had influence without any indication of whose was greater.

What??? I can barely even parse what you are saying, but what ever it is it doesn't make any sense.

So you're saying you don't have an understanding of basic economics? Or that you refuse to understand it because it violates your simplistic world view? Both are sad.

Huh? What do you mean again? Are those your true colors shining through?

You caught me. I'm actually an American who believes in outdated concepts like freedom, and not the empty phrase George W. Bush would spout every minute or so in a speech. I'm one of those whack-job extremists like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. I dislike fascism, or corporatism, or crony-capitalism, or whatever you choose to call our current system where the right campaign contribution can be more important than a good business plan.

So I'm basically right. A few dozen respected scientists and a several thousand pulled off the internet.

If you said that a significant portion of the scientific community does not support the alarmist theory, then yes you are right. But I don't think you said that. That's just what I found in a few minutes of searching. There are thousands more out there. Here's another one: A majority of American meteorologists disagree with the "consensus". Do you not find it odd that a significant number of experts in the field completely disagree? And that many have claimed that they had pressure put on them (like that alluded to in the CRU emails) to toe the party line? THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! That is religion, plain and simple.
To draw a parallel, look at evolution. The only scientists in a related field who disagree with the theory of evolution (in general, not the guys who disagree on smaller details) do so because of religious beliefs. That's not science either. And yes, I just compared you with the evolution deniers, and it fits.

So you/they claim GISS falsified data once so that invalidates all data ever produced by the institution?

Yes. That's how science works. It's all about reputation. In any other field, those people would have been ostracized by now, and rightly so. If the data is falsified by one person, who is fired for it, then the institution can begin to repair its reputation. When the person falsifying data is in charge of the institution, everything they produce must be suspect.

Right, so convincing a statement right after this one:

My apologies for assuming you could discern obvious sarcasm.

So you do believe in the scientific method, but you've already made up your mind? And who is they. You are making some pretty serious quantification errors. It is not true because one or more people do not accept dissenting opinions that they, in your words, do not accept dissenting opinions. Th

It's quite clear how he would become a multibillionaire. He started a company that does nothing but buy and sell carbon credits.

No it is not. Here is an article from someone who shares your own view also responding to my post. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL0490971420080604 He has a 9.6% stake (~$12M) in a company whose total worth is estimated at ~$120M. The value of the company would have to increase its value by more than 100 for him to reach billionaire status. Not impossible, but hardly a slam dunk.

I also never said he was more influential than multi-billion dollar industries.

No you just implied it.

However he is one of the most influential people in the world in terms of environmental policy.

So what?

Incorrect. The cost of doing business in the developed world is more expensive than in the undeveloped world. The western factories are steadily losing ground to the Daewoos and Tatas of the world. Their profits (adjusted for inflation) are shrinking. They have a few choices: compete from a position that is inferior in the long term, level the playing field by getting rid of wealth destroying laws like western income taxes and minimum wages (which the economically ignorant would never let happen), or use the fear of the scientifically ignorant to pressure the developing nations to level the playing field the other way. These are the same mega-corps that promote ideas like mandatory worker health benefits, minimum wage, and complicated tax accounting rules. Sure it costs them money, but it costs their small scale competitors a greater amount (in relative terms), so they win. If the American corporations didn't want greater regulation and global environmental treaties, why did they give record amounts of money to the Obama campaign? It certainly wasn't because he wanted to make the US a capitalist country again.

What??? I can barely even parse what you are saying, but what ever it is it doesn't make any sense.

make the US a capitalist country again.

. Huh? What do you mean again? Are those your true colors shining through?

Astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas Statistician Stephen McIntyre Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov Geologist Astrid Lyså Prof. Roy Spencer, NASA scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT a few dozen here...including an IPCC member. these 32 000 guys.

So I'm basically right. A few dozen respected scientists and a several thousand pulled off the internet.

and these 32 000 guys. That should be enough people to show there is no "consensus" on global warming.

Lol "31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs " Wow a ringing endorsement there. I'm glad that's all it takes to convince you.

The "trend", as you call it, is a decade long...so far,

No it's not. Look at the graph.

and it's projected to last another few decades

By who?

Wow, so the IPCC, known for ignoring science and falsifying data says it was only warm in Europe. Shocking!

And what evidence do you have that proves their claims are false. A couple of news articles, which are of course well know for their ability to accurately report on science. So you/they claim GISS falsified data once so that invalidates all data ever produced by the institution? Do you have better data that shows what you claim, if so why haven't you posted it.

The problem most of us "deniers" (i.e. adherents to the scientific method)

Right, so convincing a statement right after this one:

If AGW can be considered a scientific theory, and Al Gore can get a Nobel Prize f

First, it isn't clear how Al Gore would instantly become a billionaire if cap and trade becomes law.

Let me help clarify that for you a little...

hy don't other nations' militaries take a similar hard-line approach?

They do. Maybe you'd better check your news sources.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Frenchman dies in Somalia rescue 11 Apr 2009
French frigate seizes Somali pirates | World | Reuters 15 Apr 2009
French military fends off Somalia pirate attack - CNN.com 13 Oct 2009
French Navy Captures 12 Pirates Off Somalia - International News ... 13 Nov 2009

Heck, a single aircraft carrier in the region, launching planes to fly patrols which would respond to distress calls, would go a long way to securing the region.

Wah? What you going to do, bomb the ship the pirates have captured? This is a job for marines in helicopters and small boats, not flyboys.

Haven't we proven enough of our theories about this world that we know for certain things are stable to a known degree?

Not to be contrarian, but we haven't proven any of our theories at all.

First, you do not know what is occurring in every place in the universe. No number of experiments will ever prove a theory to be true because you cannot perform the test at every conceivable place in the universe. This is why Francis Bacon stated that the proper scientific method should be falsification. You only have to find one place where a theory comes up short to prove it wrong, but time constraints say that you can never prove that it is right. This is what modern science is based upon.

More importantly to his post, however, is the fact that we have no deductive reason to assume that the future will replicate the past. The GP says

Pointing out that it's worked before is just begging the question

He is referring to the problem of induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

This is not "fancy footwork," it is a many centuries old philosophical problem brought up by David Hume. You cannot state "X happened in the past, therefor it will happen in the future" without using "X happened in the past" as your reason for believing "X will continue to happen."

Essentially, you cannot prove induction correct without being inductive. "The ice I've touched has been cold, therefor all ice is cold" is not deductive reasoning.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a genuine criticism of the scientific method. "All ice I've ever touched is cold" may be true, but "All ice is cold" is completely false. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/turing-water-into-very-hot-ice-very-very-quickly.ars http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1621607620070516

This is the sort of thinking that science employs, however. Now, his point is not that science is not useful, nor is it that science is wrong. He is simply stating that inductive thinking is programmed into us, and that there is no good deductive logic which led us to it. You see neither causality nor time, these concepts exist inside of you -- i.e. Science is a byproduct of being an ape, not a byproduct of logic itself.

In addition to what I said in a sister post, take a look at this brief Reuters article: It seems that some "respected" developers are scaling back their Android operations (even more!) in favor of even more support for the iPhone.

My point is: the industry is moving around. Some developers are upset with Apple's App Store policies, but contrary to what you think there is far from a mass migration to Android at least for now .

You're a little late. Back in May, the Obama administration adopted California's fuel efficiency regulations for passenger vehicles. There are also new efficiency standards for applicances, introduced in February, and new lighting efficiency standards, introduced in June.

You're a little late. Back in May, the Obama administration adopted California's fuel efficiency regulations for passenger vehicles. There are also new efficiency standards for applicances, introduced in February, and new lighting efficiency standards, introduced in June.

You're a little late. Back in May, the Obama administration adopted California's fuel efficiency regulations for passenger vehicles. There are also new efficiency standards for applicances, introduced in February, and new lighting efficiency standards, introduced in June.

It's been reported that Google will pay Microsoft in adwords coupons.

Good science never ignores "unknown variables". The whole point of having a control set in an experiment is to isolate the variable being tested from all other variables, known or unknown.

How do you know, beyond all doubt, that you've isolated something beyond external influence?

I'm not certain what you're trying to argue here. Beliefs that are clearly irrational given what we know now might not have been clearly irrational before. Besides that, intelligent people often hold both rational and irrational beliefs.

Quantum mechanics continuously reveals examples of counter-intuitive and unbelievable behavior. What seems irrational now may later be proven true. All I'm saying is that it's foolish to be so sure of "the way things are" that one mocks and disregards ideas that seem to go against one's understanding of reality.

The placebo effect is well understood, even if we don't know the exact mechanism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE59E53320091015

Any demonstrably irrational belief should be mocked. Loudly. And often. Especially if it's trying to claim special privilege as a "religious belief" (whatever that means).

I politely disagree, citing above reasoning.

I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.
I'm sure it is frowned upon, (except in Spain, apparently, see third link), but the EU is hardly the place for a square deal:

• http://archive.corporateeurope.org/cunningbully/index.html
• http://www.euractiv.com/en/enterprise-jobs/commission-warns-bribery-opel-rescue/article-185759
• http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4560
• http://euobserver.com/9/27352
• http://www.thelocal.se/16974/20090116/
• http://blog.brusselssunshine.eu/2009/09/unnamed-french-eu-lobbying-firm-accused.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907087.stm
• http://www.neurope.eu/articles/84689.php

And I could go on. I don't know where you're dreaming up this bizarre notions about the US (I assume you are another US-hating EU idiot, so I won't question it) but bribery is not an accepted practice, politicians are caught up bribery scandals here all the time; the latest being this Jefferson guy: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AD01Z20091114, as he was just sentenced to 13 years I would hardly call what he did "accepted". You just sort of make up what life is like here based on your own twisted notions of hell and slums and what life must be like wherever you AREN'T, don't you? The moral is, don't write checks with your mouth your EU can't cash.

and with the exception of perhaps the UK, we certainly remember our friends more than they remember us.

Incorrect.
The country I'm currently living in has gone along on all your post WW2 military adventures that others were invited to: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan. They might assume that they will be remembered for such loyalty, but we know better don't we?

RealityMaster, these hysterical rants about anti Americanism and about foreigners being inferior any time some damn furner disagrees with one of you guys about regardless what subject reflect badly on you all.

These days it's like anything short of complete and utter blind devotion to all things American is considered ungrateful and anti American.

And Europe just did.

Protecting against virtual attacks is going to be the next growth industry; at least if defense contractors have anything to with it. The following from cryptome, which I'd link to if there were a way to do that.

A sends:

I was watching PBS with with my daughter yesterday and a cartoon came on PBS Kids that I found a little bit disturbing. The name of the cartoon is "Cyberchase."

Here is a description of it from the PBS Website: "In the world of CYBERCHASE, the dastardly villain Hacker is on a mad mission to take over Cyberspace with the help of his blundering henchbots, Buzz and Delete. But heroes, Inez, Jackie, and Matt, are three curious kids determined to stop him with the help of their cyberpal, Digit. Their weapon: brain power."

http://www.pbs.org/parents/tvprograms/program-cyberchase.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168619+17-Apr-2009+GNW20090417

Kind of strange a cartoon targeting the pre-school thru early grade school demographic about hackers using their minds as weapons in cyberspace. It was even stranger when it aired again today and I had a chance to see the lead corporate sponsor, Northrop Grumman. Yes, Northrop Grumman is sponsoring a cartoon for kids on Public Television. It adds new meaning to Northrop's Motto "Defining the Future" - defining the future, one young mind at a time, through children's education.

In all honesty I just never thought PBS would have the 4th largest defense contractor in the United States, the maker of B-2 Spirit strategic bomber who helps the U.S. to maintain a safe, secure and reliable strategic nuclear deterrent sponsoring kids' cartoons. Not cool.

apparently not

On the other hand, Nintendo's profits fell by over 50% last quarter over the same quarter last year. Additionally, the PS3 outsold the Wii in September in the US, taking the top spot in console sales.

To read Slashdot, you'd think Nintendo is experiencing exponential profits growth, and the Xbox 360 outsells the PS3 10-to-1.

Perhaps not, but read that Reuters stupidity with huge grains of salt.
Because it's full of BS.
Nintendo's profits may have fell by over 50 %, but they're still far ahead of their competitors despite that.
Sony game division nearly lost as much (-$600M+) as Nintendo earned in profit ($700M+) this quarter, and MS game division earned $169M in profit this same quarter.
Nintendo still post quarterly profits that the other players in the game industry rarely reach in a full fiscal year.
In H1, Nintendo earned $1.2B in profit, which was never earned in a full year, even during the best PS2 years by Sony where their gaming division reached $1.1B in profit.

That's to keep some perspective on these news, because it seems these media have none, which is sad. Nintendo was beating record after record and posting huge numbers, and they're just now falling back to "normal" levels, which happen to still be better than PS2 best levels.

The author really believes that China is rewarding intellects? According to wikipedia, China spent $40Billion on the 2008 Olympics.

I don't see intellects in any First world country making the same money as athletes. Nike spends on sponsorships $255 to $260million a year and spent $143.4 million on advertising in the first nine months of 2008. Note that Nike is a $31Billion company.

In comparison, the National Science Foundation received a total of $6.49 billion for FY09.

As a kid growing up? I don't recall any commercials saying "I wanna be like Stephen [Hawking]" or kids beating up other kids for some intellectual device, but they were sure beating each other up for a pair of Air Jordans.

Anybody else ever notice that the only commercials on TV for Educational Institutions (besides community or trade schools) are during college football games? Those commercials are only for the two schools that are playing. There's a commercial every 5minutes for sneakers, Under Armor shirts, Fitness equipment, sports drinks or sporting events. (As a side note, anybody recall the last time you saw an advertisement for Educational Software, besides Rosetta Stone? But there's a commercial every hour for some new XBOX/PS3/Wii game).

Intellectuals are enablers of other people to go onto great success. I guarantee you there were a ton of intellectuals that designed the bike, software to track, study the technique of Lance Armstrong's cycling career and victories in the Tour de France. But other than the brand, Trek, those big brained people will never be known, nor will someone pay them $50m in endorsements.

Btw: It's not just athletes vs intellectuals. Not all intellectuals are compensated equally either. I maintain the storage environment for a very large mainframe environment for a household WallStreet financial firm. Over a PB of online FICON disk much of it synchronously replicated to a remote disaster recovery site, and I can assure that my bonus is not even close to that of an entry level trader. I'm sure I could do a lot more damage than that 28yr old MBA.

On the other hand, Nintendo's profits fell by over 50% last quarter over the same quarter last year. Additionally, the PS3 outsold the Wii in September in the US, taking the top spot in console sales.

To read Slashdot, you'd think Nintendo is experiencing exponential profits growth, and the Xbox 360 outsells the PS3 10-to-1.

Every commuter rail/subway system in the US is partially funded by taxes. It's just too expensive otherwise. DC's Metro has constant problems with funding because they have no dedicated source, unlike most (all?) other US subway systems, so they're constantly being jerked around by the three local governments. For the NYC subway, see this article.

A Canadian truck driver has been fined for smoking in his own truck. His truck is a "workplace" you see, and you're not allowed to smoke at work.

Beware! Definitions have consequences!

Piracy is rampant in China, so MS adjusted their prices there. See, for example: Microsoft cuts prices in China to fight piracy.

"Microsoft said it had slashed the price for Office 2007 Home and Student Edition to 199 yuan ($29) from 699 yuan ($102)."

Apple have already signed an agreement and stated they will be using a standard micro-usb socket on the iPhones in the future. I believe Apple will introduce this socket in 2010.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE55S1XZ20090629

IIRC one time they tried this, there wás a female on board, and it caused problems. But last time it consisted of 6 males, http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE52U4PT20090331 . And I would not bet on having females in this crew either.

It doesn't force you to accept anything. Your signature is not required on your neighbors marriage license, nor is your consent, as frankly it would be none of your business.

No study? Seriously, do you even read the news?

http://prorev.com/2009/09/study-gay-adoption-doesnt-harm.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE58O3MK20090925

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/sep/25/local/chi-gay-adoption-25-sep25

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php

Yes, it would be discrimination, just as it would be discrimination to prevent a mixed race couple from adopting. The burden of proof lies on those trying to prevent it. Any non-partisan study you find will show the same result. The children grow up to be normal, well adjusted children with no ill affects.

What are they doing 87 million doses with only 33 million people?

It costs just about 3 USD, probably its fair value...

Pleasing the majority almost comes naturally; it's the size of the disaffected minority that matters.

Like this one? I still can't believe that one either.

Eh, the entire thing was clearly manufactured. All those ARMs just so happened to reset while interest rates were 4x the level they were made at. People who were quite happy making their payments suddenly had them skyrocket, so the bank took the home, then cried and sobbed to everyone who listened about how terrible those mortgage contracts they signed were and how they shouldn't have to be held to them and how if everyone didn't drop everything to shred the contracts they'd throw a temper tantrum and destroy America.

So they got the home AND our tax money.

The clearly part? The next wave of ARM resets are beginning. But the Fed rate is so low that the prime rate is down to 3.25% from 4.5% a year ago. Great for the ARM holders, bad for the banks who are already jonesing for the Fed to start pumping up rates in time for these resets so they can take the house and come back to us crying and threatening us until we give them even more tax money.

I'm still waiting for PETA [peta.org] to release some propaganda relating to this story...

They are too busy berating President Obama for murdering that poor innocent housefly.

PETA: Proudly placing animals ahead of people since 1980.

Neat. You'd better cross your fingers that the rest of the country doesn't do the same to you when Texas suddenly suffers a massive outage because the wind drops off at the exact same time there's an increase in demand.

And going on to this whole insane thread: I cannot believe how much nonsense is being spouted off by people who evidently have zero clue what they're talking about.

The outage in 2003 that some people are pointing to was an example of how RTOs work in a best case. Remember how it only essentially went north from NY, except for about 7% of northern PA and NJ. That's because the grid operators in PJM caught it and stopped it, whereas NYISO wasn't able to get there in time. (Although that's another story; combination of local utilities not doing their maintenance (e.g. pruning trees) and a mix-up because First Energy was transitioning into NYISO but hadn't completely made the switch yet.)

The guy who's behind this, Phil Harris, used to be the CEO of PJM, the largest whole-sale electric market in the world. He has a bit of an idea how these things work, and more to the point is certainly going to get people on board who REALLY know how these things work.

As for the viewpoint of "it's all about money, some lobbyists, etc", the main rationale behind having grid operators is more efficient management of the market. You can route power based on locational marginal prices (LMP) and, as the article points out, do a great deal with looking at where the supply is versus where the demand is. (E.g. - if you have a lot of wind inland, it tends to die down during the day, which is when you need it the most, and pick up during the night. Gulf coast wind is the other way around. It's about judicious playing with the time zones and demand patterns, which are forecast with extraordinary accuracy by very complicated algorithms...the kinds of technologies running these markets is just phenomenal.)

Right, rant over. I'm bored now.

Neat. You'd better cross your fingers that the rest of the country doesn't do the same to you when Texas suddenly suffers a massive outage because the wind drops off at the exact same time there's an increase in demand.

And going on to this whole insane thread: I cannot believe how much nonsense is being spouted off by people who evidently have zero clue what they're talking about.

The outage in 2003 that some people are pointing to was an example of how RTOs work in a best case. Remember how it only essentially went north from NY, except for about 7% of northern PA and NJ. That's because the grid operators in PJM caught it and stopped it, whereas NYISO wasn't able to get there in time. (Although that's another story; combination of local utilities not doing their maintenance (e.g. pruning trees) and a mix-up because First Energy was transitioning into NYISO but hadn't completely made the switch yet.)

The guy who's behind this, Phil Harris, used to be the CEO of PJM, the largest whole-sale electric market in the world. He has a bit of an idea how these things work, and more to the point is certainly going to get people on board who REALLY know how these things work.

As for the viewpoint of "it's all about money, some lobbyists, etc", the main rationale behind having grid operators is more efficient management of the market. You can route power based on locational marginal prices (LMP) and, as the article points out, do a great deal with looking at where the supply is versus where the demand is. (E.g. - if you have a lot of wind inland, it tends to die down during the day, which is when you need it the most, and pick up during the night. Gulf coast wind is the other way around. It's about judicious playing with the time zones and demand patterns, which are forecast with extraordinary accuracy by very complicated algorithms...the kinds of technologies running these markets is just phenomenal.)

Right, rant over. I'm bored now.

BTW, you might want to check out the latest stats (search for them yourself - you'll be able to sift through more info that way and make your own independent conclusions) - almost everyone who's died from H1N1 had underlying health problems, many that involved the immune system.

In other words, it's just culling the sick and weak. If you're healthy, just follow the common-sense advice on washing your hands, etc., as described here and elsewhere.

Two interesting points to ponder:

1. those who have had flu shots in previous years are twice as likely to get H1N1. It appears previous flu shots allowed people to generate antibodies that aren't all that effective, as compared to older people who were exposed to the '57 flu.
2. the higher-risk-of-death group includes both the morbidly obese and the just plain obese. While it's funny that that the swine flu is attacking people who eat like pigs, this brings up another question: did excess HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) in the diet help compromise immune systems in some unknown way, because non-morbid obesity shouldn't have this result (we expected it of the super-sized, but not the plain ordinary extra-large or double-serving sized)?

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)

Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary [youtube.com]

Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says [bloomberg.com]
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [reuters.com]
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [dailybail.com]
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [bloomberg.com]
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [bbc.co.uk]
What are the reserve currencies? [wsj.net]
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ml-implode.com]
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' [telegraph.co.uk]
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [examiner.com]
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [cnbc.com]
A False Choice [viewfromsi...valley.com]
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com [ajc.com]
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands [alternet.org]
Socialising and Privatising [freeradical.co.nz]
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses [politico.com]
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [researchrecap.com]

Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund [ft.com]

- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. [en.rian.ru]

- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati

Quote from the Reuters story, Praise and skepticism greet Obama Nobel award: "... absurd to give it to Obama when he had ordered 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year."

The Norwegian Nobel Committee's deadline for nominations was February 1, just 11 days after Obama's inauguration.

"I'm posting this as AC for a good reason; I work with Accenture and Microsoft both...

I believe you, I really do and your not invoking the appealing-to-authority astro-turfing/fud strategy.

"if say, PM X doesn't request Microsoft to look at problem B because they have no idea it could be a problem (because they not being of a technical background wouldn't think to think it could), then the boys in blue won't either. Sounds like this was the more of the same"

You're talking nonsense. The stock exchange system failed on one of the busiest trading days. And the system had been in place two years, enough time to have any design bugs come to light.

"there were serious holes in the system I can see already; the infrastructure was ancient (a DBMS & .net runtime nearly a decade old)"

Do you have any verifiable citations for the above. Why, for instance would they be using a decade old run time on a system implemented only two years previously. And if it wasn't capible of delivering, why was it ever implemented in the first place? As someone who works with both, you should have all the inside information.

'The London Stock Exchange (LSE.L) suffered its worst systems failure in eight years on Monday, forcing the world's third largest share market to suspend trading for about seven hours and infuriating its users. The problem occurred on what could have been one of London's busiest trading days of the year'

it failed in the middle of a convoluted project to tie the system in to another system in Italy.

It failed early on one of one of the biggest trading days in history - when the US federal government announced it was taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was down for 6 hours and 45 minutes. Let me quote from that article:

Somehow "we couldn't have foreseen" and "we're confident it will not happen again" don't fit very well together.

At the time, Reuters quoted a trader:

"We have the biggest takeover in the history of the known world ... and then we can't trade. It's terrible," one trader said.

The kind of folks who write software for this type of system like to audit the source for the scheduler, optimize the network stack for their own use and examine every library to figure out how to squeeze out a few extra microseconds here and there. This is not the type of stuff you do on Windows and .Net.

The prior system had 6 years of 0-nines uptime. No failures in six years. Windows and .Net couldn't squeek through three years without a catastrophic failure that shut down the entire system for nearly an entire trading day - and it failed when it mattered most.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't .Net. Maybe it wasn't Windows. I haven't seen any proof either way. Somehow I doubt they care. The company they bought cost half as much as the .Net system, and in addition to superior performance it does not have that history.

...it's news because Microsoft bragged on .NET being in the LSE for a couple of years, pointing to it as proof that they were enterprise-ready and such.

Then at about this time last year, the TradElect system (which was the .NET bits which ran the LSE) went 'splat', taking the London Stock Exchange down with it.

The relevant info should be sitting right there in TFA.

Google Apps/Gmail has gone down multiple times in the past several years. I suppose that means linux sucks? I mean sheesh, this Microsoft solution only went down one time in 3 years. Google/Linux couldn't even handle the lower-volume, less-stressed, less mission critical email market...

Implementation is the important factor.

Oh, and it's not like the linux based NYSE has never had an issue. Or the Frankfurt Exchange. Or the Australian Exchange. Or the Moscow Exchange. Or the Tokyo Exchange.

In fact, we have had 8 major failures of linux based exchanges this decade.

Total coincidentally, of course. They switched over a whole year ago now, and of course americans don't have an attention span long enough to allow them to build up an excuse to attack Iran. Oh no.

The country people *should* be bombing the fuck out of is Saudi Arabia. They're seriously evil bastards.

The reason I could never take MAC seriously for any sort of business is lack of docking ports..

Though Apple doesn't make any there are docks for Macs. When I get my next MacBook Pro I may get a BookEndz as well.

It drives me nuts to see how often MAC gets recommended as a laptop.. Sure.. it's the nicest one you see at Best Buy.. But no corporation should ever consider using laptops that don't have docking ports.

One, see above. Two, Macs, including Mac laptops, are used in businesses. I dated, yes dated, a lady who ran her own business and she only used Macs. If she had to run Windows, and running a business she had to when working with clients as well as for testing, she ran it in a VM. Here's a "CIO" article on "MacBook Pro and IPod on Mount Everest".

Falcon

I was looking for this comment as the tech is not new. I was surprised to see it now on Slashdot. Ventricular Assist Devices have been around for a long time, and I know that at least Thoratec's Heartmate II and Heartware's HVAD are continuous flow. At least 50 people in the US already have Heartware's device in them, and I think there's been a European study, too. One thing I've heard and would be curious to know if it's true, is that even though the device is a continuous flow pump many patients spontaneously develop a pulse anyway. Have you seen that?

I think the author's gripe is with transfer pricing, which is seen by some as a way to abuse the tax system. Wikipedia probably explains it better than I can but it is a fairly ordinary course for a business to engage in transfer pricing (shifting of intangibles including IP within its subsidiaries to minimize tax) and there are a lot of complex rules and regulations involved (albeit, mostly on international level). But some view it a way to abuse the tax system and there has been a lot of controversies involved:

1. Google - http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/11/is-google-a-tax.html
2. Amazon - http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE5640CR20090705 (here Amazon was hit with about 100M in fines by the Japanese authority).
3. U2 - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/u2-respond-to-critics-of-their-deal-with-the-taxman/

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing

My view is that it is not (but then again, my view is no corporate tax and high VAT), but I think it is a legitimate criticism.

And, speaking of Malaysia, they already go after anyone with "Mc" in the name - so no trademarking "McSandwich" or "McBreadWithMeat" or "McDoubleMcMeatProductWithMcCheeseProduct."

You missed the news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS121649+18-Sep-2009+PRN20090918