The point is that "liberalism" applied to economy is a center-right concept, while "liberalism" applied to "social matter" is a center-left concept.
At least here in Norway I'd disagree, the left is into high taxes, many government services and little economic freedom as well as trying to curb anything they consider harmful or unhealthy activities so little social freedom as well. They want to both provide for you and protect you from yourself. Here I'd say both kinds of liberals are to the right of that, but it's not the "same" right as they disagree almost as much with each other as they do with the left.
That describes perfectly what is happening in the U.S.
To be fair, I'm American and I use the word burgled as buglarized is such a hideous word. I have no idea how long it's going to take to convert the rest of the country though.
Probably as long as it is taking to convert inches to centimeters.
The question here is incorrect. The premise is whether or not it protects the small investor. Answer is yes. What the small investor can't do is afford a law team to defend the patent. This is the crux of the entire patent problem these days.
No. this is the problem with American society now. Unless you are wealthy you can not win if someone with more money attacks you in the legal system. Even if you are 100% in the right the opposition can use their resources to drain what little money you might have and win any legal battle by just delaying and causing you to spend more money you don't have. This is not justice but it is the way the system works.
Sounds to me like a lost business opportunity. If they stumbled upon a significant demand for a service, then should've simply expanded their offerings to include that service. I'm not sure why you would go to the trouble of changing your name to avoid having to deal with people asking to do business with you.
I know how annoying this can be. My home phone number was one digit off from a beauty parlor when I lived in a small town. I got several calls every day from people trying to set up appointments. I tried to explain that they had the wrong number but the calls persisted. Finally, in desperation, I just started making appointments. Sometimes a dozen a day. After a couple of months the calls dwindled down to nothing. A guy's gotta do what he has to do.
yes they should. lets just enable it on everyones bill and make the first month free.
turn an outage into a marketing strategy.
That's what DirecTV does. They give you everything but fails to tell you that you need to cancel the extras. They also tell you that unless you give them a credit card to bill directly (pun intended) they will charge you more. So unless you are aware and paying attention, they screw you out of a month or two of high dollar TV. And you need to really pay attention. Come football season you'll suddenly be charged another $60.00 / month for football coverage you didn't order. It's all a scam. There isn't an honest one out there.
> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).
>I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
>The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.
I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler
> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).
The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.
>the bottom 98% woke up and said, "wow! The top 1% is taking everything
I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler
This is what I believe also. Everyone should pay taxes. Why should anyone get a free ride. You shouldn't be able to decide how much of my tax money you get when you pay nothing. I have no problem whatsoever with a graduated tax rate. The wealthier pay more and the poor pay less. But everyone who earns money should pay "Their Fair Share!"
I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.
And when we have record breaking Summer temperatures that "disproves" what you say?
Even assuming the earth is warming (and we aren't confident we know why), the earth has been through many warm spells.
Yes. And? Were they as dramatic as they are now? And what was the result? Extinctions for one.
Better to spend the money trying to figure out ways to live and thrive in a warmer climate.
Yep. Fuel prices will go through the roof. Cities will flood. Crop yields will plummet, Poor people will starve - not a problem for some: they're poor for a "reason" after all and deserve it!
The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
We already realize it but nobody is willing to do anything or they bury their heads in the sand. Nothing will be done until it's too late, I'm afraid.
Think China and India might stop using coal? Think they'll stop building coal-fire power plants?
Actually yes, they will. You see, the Chinese leadership made up of scientists and engineers (and I think one "lowly" economist) and they see the writing on the wall. And as it is now, they are concerned about pollution and air quality.
We need to get real about this. NOW.
Yes we do. Folks need to stop listening to the pundits who have no science background let alone one in climatology and who offer no counter evidence or data and only offer ad homminem attacks on the climatologists. If one has a real criticism about human caused climate change or global warming, I wish they'd offer evidence with data to counter the claims.
The real problem with global warming is that there are way too many people on the earth. We are like a fungus. In 20 years we will double again. If we are concerned with having the resources to feed the present population, how the hell are we going to do it twenty years from now? Nobody wants to talk about it but something has to be done about the population. China tried the one child route, the world would be wise to follow suite.
Presumably Buffet is making the same assumptions as Murdoch did in putting The Times (UK) behind a paywall a couple of years ago, namely that a) a tiny number of paying subscribers brings in more money in fees than millions of freeloaders do in ad revenue, and b) hopefully many more major publications will follow suit sooner or later, thus making it harder for people to get quality content for free, and so increasing the chance that they'll decide to pay for their news. There is some evidence that paywalls work if done right, and are working for the New York Post, the evidence seems slightly more mixed for The Times, I guess we're a smaller market in the UK, so it will be harder to make it work here. Whether it will be true for the Washington Post remains to be seen, but it's not completely crazy.
It probably depends a lot on the slant of the news. If you want your news with a liberal slant then you will support one paper. Conservative slant another. There does not appear to be a news source available without a bias. We might as well be reading vacuum tubes because they're all biased... negatively.
To what purpose? Doing it just to do it serves none. Like saying frm now all Ducks shall be called Nozzes! New label, same concept, no net change.
Not when the entire populace already knows how to think in one and not the other. Ever had to retrain an enitire corporation after a fundamental software package switchover? That would be a walk in teh park compared to this. Being able to think in a system of measurements is such a low level function of the brain its nearly impossible to completely retrain it to fluency levels in the new one. And the use of language related words is intentional because it's nearly at that level of brain function.
And most people who want this arbitrary change over fail to consider that. Just like they fail to consider that metric (or more accurately SI) has its own idiosyncracies. they ignore situations where its not as useful and that its not all easy conversions of 10. And ignore that our system of units has its own situations where its naturally superior or advantageous to use it over metric. (hydrology is a good example; several conversions reduce to 1.0x)
and with the massive amount of computing power located in your pocket right now, you really shouldnt fear any system of units. It's just math, and conversion is not particularly hard anyway...unless youre a disabled black kid in Virginia of course.
The Canadians did it without too much trouble. The British did it with their money. Why the hell can't we do it?
Accusing somebody of rape when he did nothing is a very serious matter. It destroys that person's life forever! If you don't put the correction up high enough, people will miss that it was a false accusation, and a "urban legend"/meme type thing will form, that sticks to that person forever anyway.
Corrections just aren't enough when a person is accused of a crime. Even resigning, plenty of people will believe that Alistair did it and that shadowy right-wing operatives coerced him into resigning.
The only right answer is not to fuck it up in the first place.
And I'm sure that in the U.K. just having a person investigated by the Police, leaves an unremovable trail. You may be totally innocent but there will always be a record that you were investigated. The outcome of the investigation is irrelevant.
It does not matter who it was with. The security clearance is contingent on the person not ever being in a position where they can be blackmailed. He broke this rule. That is the reason.
That's great. I'm over 70 and I do indeed remember my Ovaltine decoders. I bet a very large percentage of the people here on/. have no clue what your post was about. Thank you sir, for reminding me of some good childhood memories.
Which will never happen for the same reason you will never have a solar powered commercial airliner. The cell phone's solar cells must be exposed to sunlight to generate electricity. Unless you want it mounted on your head with a sun tracking mechanism, it isn't going to work. The surface area required to power the phone would be too large. You can charge a battery with the phone off, with a solar cell. You can't power the phone and charge the battery with the small surface area of the phone. I thought we geeks were supposed to be Engineers. There is not enough energy per square centimeter to power your cell phone or an airplane other than a tiny model. It's a 'law' and even Congress can't pass amendments to get around it.
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and higher quantity
If I understand what you're saying, then if "supply and demand" is a law, the companies who artificially limit supply in order to raise prices are the equivalent of someone who breaks the law and gets off on a technicality.
The only thing you've proved is the reason why there can never be a "free market": because we have companies who will profit more by making less of something. Farmers who will burn cornfields in order to raise prices and oil companies who will start rumors of oil field explosions in order to get a bump in the spot price. And there's more profit in destroying your competition than there is in selling a great product.
If the system can be gained by artificial scarcity, then there cannot be a "free market".
The one factor you all leave out of the equation is competition. If there is no competition then the seller can scam the market. However, if someone else makes a similar product and wants to sell lots of them, he will lower the price. That's the way the market worked when I was young 50 plus years ago. Then the U. S. has anti trust laws and enforced them. That meant that Circle K and 7/11 couldn't buy up all the Mom & Pop stores and take over the entire market small stores. The government turned their backs on the banking industry and allowed Chase and Bank of America to buy up all the smaller banks. Now we have banks that are too large to fail and no competition. Capitalism served us well for two centuries but when the government started allowing larger companies to get rid of competition by buying it out the system became unbalanced. I could write a book on this but I'll stop my rant here.
They got hacked. They got the Feds. involved to catch the scum. They figured out who was "likely-impacted." Their notifying the banks involved, so hopefully the computers can catch any spending patterns that come from the breach. They pulled the infected equipment. They let the world know.
They'll still get my business.
Sony had a similar situation.
They got hacked. They got law enforcement involved. They figured out who was likely-impacted. They pulled the infected equipment. They let the world know.
In just 7-9 days.
And they still got a lot of flak for it.
This incident with B&N happened on September 14. This was revealed 2 days ago. So...a total of 38 or 39 days.
I can't speak for you specifically, but I find it ironic that a lot of people who side with B&N here will have prayed for Sony to have torn a new rear-end then.
Bunch of hypocrites.
I don't think so. Nothing I ever purchased from B & N ever had a root kit. I still own two CDs I bought from Sony with root kit software imbedded. B & N never perpetrated evil on it's customers, Sony did. I loved Sony before that incident and thought they produced superior products. Afterward, I avoid Sony whenever possible. Like 911, I'll never forget.
I've heard that a lot about Anathem, but for some reason I count it as one of the best books I've ever read. At a point later in the book there was a large chunk of almost straight dialog (about 50 pages) concerning various philosophical and metaphysical concepts. I was glued the entire time. However, in Quicksilver, a similar approach concerning economics left me bored to tears. I guess it's all about the subject.
I loved Cryptonomicom and also Quicksilver. Quicksilver gave me an insight in how world economics developed. I never took any courses on economics and I found Quicksilver fascinating.
It's a wonder so few people actually realize that introducing a massive supply of *insert rare thing here* makes that thing non-rare, bringing down cost.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that "liberalism" applied to economy is a center-right concept, while "liberalism" applied to "social matter" is a center-left concept.
At least here in Norway I'd disagree, the left is into high taxes, many government services and little economic freedom as well as trying to curb anything they consider harmful or unhealthy activities so little social freedom as well. They want to both provide for you and protect you from yourself. Here I'd say both kinds of liberals are to the right of that, but it's not the "same" right as they disagree almost as much with each other as they do with the left.
That describes perfectly what is happening in the U.S.
To be fair, I'm American and I use the word burgled as buglarized is such a hideous word. I have no idea how long it's going to take to convert the rest of the country though.
Probably as long as it is taking to convert inches to centimeters.
By passing the reforms the big contributors want. I long for the days when our politicians represented the people and not the big business interests.
Perhaps it is something specific. Like having the chicken juices leaking out because it isn't protected with a leakproof plastic bag.
The question here is incorrect. The premise is whether or not it protects the small investor. Answer is yes. What the small investor can't do is afford a law team to defend the patent. This is the crux of the entire patent problem these days.
No. this is the problem with American society now. Unless you are wealthy you can not win if someone with more money attacks you in the legal system. Even if you are 100% in the right the opposition can use their resources to drain what little money you might have and win any legal battle by just delaying and causing you to spend more money you don't have. This is not justice but it is the way the system works.
Sounds to me like a lost business opportunity. If they stumbled upon a significant demand for a service, then should've simply expanded their offerings to include that service. I'm not sure why you would go to the trouble of changing your name to avoid having to deal with people asking to do business with you.
I know how annoying this can be. My home phone number was one digit off from a beauty parlor when I lived in a small town. I got several calls every day from people trying to set up appointments. I tried to explain that they had the wrong number but the calls persisted. Finally, in desperation, I just started making appointments. Sometimes a dozen a day. After a couple of months the calls dwindled down to nothing. A guy's gotta do what he has to do.
agreed.
Google DOES read your email, and we learned from the Patreus affair that access to that email is handed over without a warrant as well.
Are we living in a police state yet?
Yes!
yes they should. lets just enable it on everyones bill and make the first month free.
turn an outage into a marketing strategy.
That's what DirecTV does. They give you everything but fails to tell you that you need to cancel the extras. They also tell you that unless you give them a credit card to bill directly (pun intended) they will charge you more. So unless you are aware and paying attention, they screw you out of a month or two of high dollar TV. And you need to really pay attention. Come football season you'll suddenly be charged another $60.00 / month for football coverage you didn't order. It's all a scam. There isn't an honest one out there.
> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).
>I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
>The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.
I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler
> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).
The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.
>the bottom 98% woke up and said, "wow! The top 1% is taking everything
I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.
This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler
This is what I believe also. Everyone should pay taxes. Why should anyone get a free ride. You shouldn't be able to decide how much of my tax money you get when you pay nothing. I have no problem whatsoever with a graduated tax rate. The wealthier pay more and the poor pay less. But everyone who earns money should pay "Their Fair Share!"
I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.
And when we have record breaking Summer temperatures that "disproves" what you say?
Even assuming the earth is warming (and we aren't confident we know why), the earth has been through many warm spells.
Yes. And? Were they as dramatic as they are now? And what was the result? Extinctions for one.
Better to spend the money trying to figure out ways to live and thrive in a warmer climate.
Yep. Fuel prices will go through the roof. Cities will flood. Crop yields will plummet, Poor people will starve - not a problem for some: they're poor for a "reason" after all and deserve it!
The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
We already realize it but nobody is willing to do anything or they bury their heads in the sand. Nothing will be done until it's too late, I'm afraid.
Think China and India might stop using coal? Think they'll stop building coal-fire power plants?
Actually yes, they will. You see, the Chinese leadership made up of scientists and engineers (and I think one "lowly" economist) and they see the writing on the wall. And as it is now, they are concerned about pollution and air quality.
We need to get real about this. NOW.
Yes we do. Folks need to stop listening to the pundits who have no science background let alone one in climatology and who offer no counter evidence or data and only offer ad homminem attacks on the climatologists. If one has a real criticism about human caused climate change or global warming, I wish they'd offer evidence with data to counter the claims.
The real problem with global warming is that there are way too many people on the earth. We are like a fungus. In 20 years we will double again. If we are concerned with having the resources to feed the present population, how the hell are we going to do it twenty years from now? Nobody wants to talk about it but something has to be done about the population. China tried the one child route, the world would be wise to follow suite.
Presumably Buffet is making the same assumptions as Murdoch did in putting The Times (UK) behind a paywall a couple of years ago, namely that a) a tiny number of paying subscribers brings in more money in fees than millions of freeloaders do in ad revenue, and b) hopefully many more major publications will follow suit sooner or later, thus making it harder for people to get quality content for free, and so increasing the chance that they'll decide to pay for their news. There is some evidence that paywalls work if done right, and are working for the New York Post, the evidence seems slightly more mixed for The Times, I guess we're a smaller market in the UK, so it will be harder to make it work here. Whether it will be true for the Washington Post remains to be seen, but it's not completely crazy.
It probably depends a lot on the slant of the news. If you want your news with a liberal slant then you will support one paper. Conservative slant another. There does not appear to be a news source available without a bias. We might as well be reading vacuum tubes because they're all biased... negatively.
The last sentence is for folks over 60.
Do you deny that Americans are generally the cause to all of the world's problems?
Actually, over population is the cause of all the world's problems.
I'm pretty sure that I read a book about that, and the title was "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"...
There is another book although he isn't vegetative just trapped in his body, called 'Johnny Got His Gun'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Got_His_Gun
To what purpose? Doing it just to do it serves none. Like saying frm now all Ducks shall be called Nozzes! New label, same concept, no net change.
Not when the entire populace already knows how to think in one and not the other. Ever had to retrain an enitire corporation after a fundamental software package switchover? That would be a walk in teh park compared to this. Being able to think in a system of measurements is such a low level function of the brain its nearly impossible to completely retrain it to fluency levels in the new one. And the use of language related words is intentional because it's nearly at that level of brain function.
And most people who want this arbitrary change over fail to consider that. Just like they fail to consider that metric (or more accurately SI) has its own idiosyncracies. they ignore situations where its not as useful and that its not all easy conversions of 10. And ignore that our system of units has its own situations where its naturally superior or advantageous to use it over metric. (hydrology is a good example; several conversions reduce to 1.0x)
and with the massive amount of computing power located in your pocket right now, you really shouldnt fear any system of units. It's just math, and conversion is not particularly hard anyway...unless youre a disabled black kid in Virginia of course.
The Canadians did it without too much trouble. The British did it with their money. Why the hell can't we do it?
Accusing somebody of rape when he did nothing is a very serious matter. It destroys that person's life forever!
If you don't put the correction up high enough, people will miss that it was a false accusation, and a "urban legend"/meme type thing will form, that sticks to that person forever anyway.
Corrections just aren't enough when a person is accused of a crime. Even resigning, plenty of people will believe that Alistair did it and that shadowy right-wing operatives coerced him into resigning.
The only right answer is not to fuck it up in the first place.
And I'm sure that in the U.K. just having a person investigated by the Police, leaves an unremovable trail. You may be totally innocent but there will always be a record that you were investigated. The outcome of the investigation is irrelevant.
It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer, and it was uncovered by the FBI.
It does not matter who it was with. The security clearance is contingent on the person not ever being in a position where they can be blackmailed. He broke this rule. That is the reason.
What the fuck are you talking about?
An Oscar is a tropical fish kept in an aquarium.
"drink more ovaltine"
doh! I knew it. just knew it.
That's great. I'm over 70 and I do indeed remember my Ovaltine decoders. I bet a very large percentage of the people here on /. have no clue what your post was about. Thank you sir, for reminding me of some good childhood memories.
Way to get every /. member on the no fly list.
It's probably dangerous to even comment on this article. It's probably a Homeland SecurityTSA sting.
Hell, I just want a solar-powered cell phone, which they still can't figure out.
Which will never happen for the same reason you will never have a solar powered commercial airliner. The cell phone's solar cells must be exposed to sunlight to generate electricity. Unless you want it mounted on your head with a sun tracking mechanism, it isn't going to work. The surface area required to power the phone would be too large. You can charge a battery with the phone off, with a solar cell. You can't power the phone and charge the battery with the small surface area of the phone. I thought we geeks were supposed to be Engineers. There is not enough energy per square centimeter to power your cell phone or an airplane other than a tiny model. It's a 'law' and even Congress can't pass amendments to get around it.
If I understand what you're saying, then if "supply and demand" is a law, the companies who artificially limit supply in order to raise prices are the equivalent of someone who breaks the law and gets off on a technicality.
The only thing you've proved is the reason why there can never be a "free market": because we have companies who will profit more by making less of something. Farmers who will burn cornfields in order to raise prices and oil companies who will start rumors of oil field explosions in order to get a bump in the spot price. And there's more profit in destroying your competition than there is in selling a great product.
If the system can be gained by artificial scarcity, then there cannot be a "free market".
The one factor you all leave out of the equation is competition. If there is no competition then the seller can scam the market. However, if someone else makes a similar product and wants to sell lots of them, he will lower the price. That's the way the market worked when I was young 50 plus years ago. Then the U. S. has anti trust laws and enforced them. That meant that Circle K and 7/11 couldn't buy up all the Mom & Pop stores and take over the entire market small stores. The government turned their backs on the banking industry and allowed Chase and Bank of America to buy up all the smaller banks. Now we have banks that are too large to fail and no competition. Capitalism served us well for two centuries but when the government started allowing larger companies to get rid of competition by buying it out the system became unbalanced. I could write a book on this but I'll stop my rant here.
Why? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
We use "fungal" to describe "fungus-based", what is wrong with algal? One sees "algal bloom" fairly often.
Are we trying to dumb down science for the lowest common idiot now?
If I had points you, sir, would be 'awarded" one. I love your Simpsonian English.
Seriously, no irony.
They got hacked. They got the Feds. involved to catch the scum. They figured out who was "likely-impacted." Their notifying the banks involved, so hopefully the computers can catch any spending patterns that come from the breach. They pulled the infected equipment. They let the world know.
They'll still get my business.
Sony had a similar situation.
They got hacked. They got law enforcement involved. They figured out who was likely-impacted. They pulled the infected equipment. They let the world know.
In just 7-9 days.
And they still got a lot of flak for it.
This incident with B&N happened on September 14. This was revealed 2 days ago. So...a total of 38 or 39 days.
I can't speak for you specifically, but I find it ironic that a lot of people who side with B&N here will have prayed for Sony to have torn a new rear-end then.
Bunch of hypocrites.
I don't think so. Nothing I ever purchased from B & N ever had a root kit. I still own two CDs I bought from Sony with root kit software imbedded. B & N never perpetrated evil on it's customers, Sony did. I loved Sony before that incident and thought they produced superior products. Afterward, I avoid Sony whenever possible. Like 911, I'll never forget.
I've heard that a lot about Anathem, but for some reason I count it as one of the best books I've ever read. At a point later in the book there was a large chunk of almost straight dialog (about 50 pages) concerning various philosophical and metaphysical concepts. I was glued the entire time. However, in Quicksilver, a similar approach concerning economics left me bored to tears. I guess it's all about the subject.
I loved Cryptonomicom and also Quicksilver. Quicksilver gave me an insight in how world economics developed. I never took any courses on economics and I found Quicksilver fascinating.
It's a wonder so few people actually realize that introducing a massive supply of *insert rare thing here* makes that thing non-rare, bringing down cost.
Like Diamonds?