Airlines whose planes crash regularly tend not to last long.
Somehow, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
"Yeah, we got rid of some regulations and some planes crashed but that's okay because those airlines went out of businesses and the executives got jobs with other airlines."
Regulations are primarily used to keep new, cheaper, more innovative competitors out of the market.
Strange. Because wouldn't the existing airlines be happy to buy the new company and then use the "new, cheaper, more innovative" tech to undercut their competitors?
If you can do the work cheaper, you can charge slightly less than your competition and still make a bigger profit.
That doesn't even make sense. Patents are one, very specific, form of "regulation". And software patents in particular are a very, very, very specific form of "regulation".
Yet you immediately went with the general category of "regulation".
Why?
The only way for me to get it to market is to go through FAA certification.
Certification is NOT the same as patents.
Why are you trying to associate the two different concepts?
The requirements do not, in themselves, make better software, I just saw a speech...
First, make that a period rather than a comma.
Second, again, you're trying to associate two different concepts.
Requirements are not patents. Certifications are not patents. Regulations (in general) are not patents.
You want to help out workers? Cut regulatory requirements.
I'd disagree with that. The "regulatory requirements" (in what appears to the case you're describing) are there to check that the systems meet the safety requirements of the FAA.
I'm okay with the FAA having requirements on software/hardware when the risk is something falling out of the sky.
You are complaining about the actions of the fortune 500 companies who have spent a lot of money to create regulatory hurdles for the little guys.
I don't see that.
I do see the Fortune 500 abusing the patent system to create hurdles for the small businesses.
But getting FAA approval... no, I don't see that as a hurdle from the Fortune 500 put up that needs to be reduced.
Particularly when you confuse regulations, requirements and certifications with patents.
I'm just saying that it (or even complete legalization) will not be the death blow for the cartels - they have grown too powerful for that.
As long as crime pays, there will be people who try to cash in on it.
Some of those people will form groups to facilitate their crimes.
Nothing will ever end "organized crime". But that doesn't matter as long as it is weaker than the central government. So that should be the first goal.
Then, clean up the central government.
I would be against legalizing stuff such as cocaine, however - that stuff is too easy to get hooked on, causes severe physiological (and not just psychological) dependency, and can make a man into a complete wreck in a matter of months.
Anything that is illegal will generate revenue for organized crime.
Legalize it. Localize it (grown in the USofA by Unionized farmers) Regulate it Tax it Take the tax revenue and fund free recovery clinics and anti-drug drives.
There are LOTS of people out there who can use "recreational" drugs without negatively impacting society (aside from the money going to the cartels who KILL PEOPLE). The same as most of the people who buy alcohol don't go out and smash their cars into other cars.
Tax the product so that the percentage of people who CAN use it responsibly pay for the treatment of those who CANNOT.
Preventing guns and munitions from flowing to Mexico would have a much more significant impact.
How would that work? Bullets are small and cheap.
It might "have a much more significant impact" but it is impossible to achieve.
But moving the revenue stream from the cartels to a legitimate government is easier to accomplish. The same as was done with Prohibition here.
In the US the reason why the mob declined rapidly after prohibition ended had more to do with virtually all of the money in organized crime drying up.
Well, except for the "protection rackets" and smuggling (gotta love the tax differentials between cities / states that make that profitable) and so forth.
But I'll take "declined rapidly" over the situation during Prohibition.
People keep suggesting legalization but it's little more than rationalization of bad behavior.
It's supply and demand. Saying "bad behavior" is a moral statement.
Reducing their income means that they have less money.
And money is the reason that they're taking money from the people in the areas they control.
The problem is that bullets are cheap. It's going to be a long, bloody war no matter what happens. But reducing their income means that it will be shorter and less bloody.
Mexico is falling into warlordism. The central government is ineffective / complicit. Legalizing drugs would move the money FROM the cartels TO the legal growers AND the government (taxes).
There's a lot that has to happen to legalize the drugs. But it is the first step in this situation.
The CEO gets daily reports of what the securities division is doing and ignores that the primary business of the company is insurance.
The insurance business is HIGHLY regulated. The CEO (and BoD) know EXACTLY what is in their investments because they can only write policies for X times the amount of money they have.
If their investments LOSE money, that means they lose MORE insurance business.
Again, your position seems to require very specific ignorance from the CEO and the BoD.
Again, no Wall Street would not accept regulation even if they don't know what it entails.
Yeah, again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
CDSs and CDOs are complex financial instruments that not many understood.
Yeah, again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
The CEO and the BoD didn't know (or bother to learn) what their companies were investing in because there was too much for them to do and the division doing the investing was small (despite being allowed to take on enough debt to kill the company) and even if the CEO did look into it (because he needed to know how much insurance he could issue based upon his investment) he would not have been able to understand it and that would be perfectly okay with him.
Again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
And how many people have access to your bank account? If you are a company with 96,000 people, are you keeping tabs on all of them?
Yes. In fact, I would have a division (possibly called "Accounting" or something) with people dedicated to monitoring it and checking the cash flow. Maybe I'd even have a "C" level executive reporting to me who monitored things like that . Maybe I'd call that person the Chief Financial Officer.
I might even have things I would maybe call "internal audits" just to make sure that the cash / investments were where I thought they should be. To find/prevent something I'd call "embezzlement" (because I like z's).
Again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
Your entire assumption is that they knew everything that was happening and did nothing to stop it or allowed it to happen. Never it occur to you that it was not done with knowledge or approval.
Like I said before, that's some amazingly specific ignorance on the part of the CEO and the BoD.
And yet they lobbied Congress to NOT regulate the stuff they did NOT know was going on in the division that they never bothered to check. Despite that division racking up massive debt for the company.
It is against their nature to accept regulation even if it would have prevented the crisis because they do not want to accept any limits on their ability to make money even if the limit is designed to curtail financial crisis of the whole system.
And yet you postulate that the CEO and BoD did NOT know what was going on in that division that was making all the money that they like so much.
Again, that's a very specific form or ignorance.
I like money. But if my bank accounts start showing more than I expect them to, I'm going to investigate.
As I said before the very small department was making bets were very risky and none of it was really approved.
Really? The CEO thought that it would be a good idea to have a division taking on massive debt for the company without oversight?
Wow!
And the board of directors agreed with the CEO?
Double wow!
What regulations? The derivatives market is unregulated. And Wall Street has found all attempts at regulation.
So not only didn't the CEO and the BoD know what was happening in a division that reported to them AND was allowed to take on massive debt... but that same CEO actively lobbied Congress to prevent regulations that would require limits on that division that he did not know about.
All the while, taking in HUGE profits and bonuses.
That is some amazingly specific ignorance for a CEO.
I mean, if my bank account suddenly started going up much faster than I had calculated, I'd probably do some investigating to see where the additional money was coming from.
They received bonuses that had previously been guaranteed.
So the bonuses do NOT reflect their performance.
Isn't that exactly what people have been saying? No matter how bad they do, they get bonuses, because the bonuses are not tied to performance (no matter what the claims are).
Instead, it is friends awarding friends more money from the company's coffers. As long as there is money in the company, the bonuses will be awarded. Even if the company is in danger of failing and putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work.
Those same friends are the ones who wrote those contracts.
Fuck them. Fire them and invalidate the contracts. At least the lawyers will have something productive to do.
IPv6 still needs a firewall, which will be done by the same device that currently does your NAT and firewall. Why would that change?
No it does not. The same as IPv4 does not require a firewall.
But, many end-users purchase an EXTERNAL firewall in order to get the PAT functionality so that they can run multiple devices (and wireless) on the single IP address that their ISP provides them.
So, in order for them to overcome the limitations of IPv4 (fewer IP addresses) they, inadvertently, purchase a firewall that improves their security.
Why, did your current router come pre-configured to forward all of your ports to random inside IPs without you directing it to do so? No?
I have no idea what you're thinking of.
Then why would an IPv6 firewall allow in a single packet from the Internet without you specifically directing it to? It won't.
Again, because with IPv6 there is no need for the ISP to limit the end-user to a single IP address. So the end-user can purchase different devices (such as a switch with a wireless bridge) that would allow the same PERCEIVED functionality with IPv6 as they get with IPv4 and a firewall/PAT device today.
Globally routable does NOT mean you are forced to globally route anything. It makes it an Option, fully under your control. An option you typically never have right now, want it or not.
And the point being that the end-user does NOT understand that TODAY. And cannot be expected to understand it when Comcast rolls out IPv6.
Having globally routable addresses means that if the end-user's home network is mis-configured from a security stand-point, their devices could still "work" from the perspective of the end-user. They would still be able to access the Internet.
Right now, with IPv4, that is less likely for the end-user.
The only reason they went into the subprime mortgage business was that they saw that players like Goldman Sachs were making a lot of money. However they didn't realize the implications or that Goldman had started to short those investments.
And...
The relatively small department that was handling securities brought the company down because they were leveraged far more than the value of the company's assets.
Why didn't they know the risk? Why did they get that plan approved?
At a certain point you have to understand that the people doing this were not stupid. They knew that they were taking risks.
And as long as the risks paid off, they pulled in lots of money.
But... as with ALL systems like this, EVENTUALLY the risk does not pay off. And then the company has to cover the loss.
That is the problem. They weren't stupid. They were just betting that they would retire/move BEFORE the risks failed. And since it brought in tons of cash for AIG, the same thought process was shared by management. Get the money while the getting is good and just hope that you aren't the one left holding the loss when it collapses.
Which is why we had REGULATIONS about how these things work.
So the banks were able to lobby Congress to get the regulations removed / reduced / overlooked / whatever.
(And yes, salaries would be high, because there's a lot of money floating around and a lot of competition for who's going to get it, so the best talent will absolutely demand high pay.)
The people who drove the companies they worked for to the brink of failure received bonuses.
I don't think "best talent" applies in this discussion.
I suspect most people will go buy an "IPv6 capable" firewall/switch with built in access-point. End users will have no idea that they no longer use nat - hell most probably don't even know they have it now.
The current situation provides some level of security for the end-user... even if the end-user does not understand the concepts.
The get 1 IP address from their ISP and they buy a magic box that provides them lots of sockets to plug stuff into and wireless access. They don't know if they're running NAT or PAT or what the difference is between stateless and stateful.
But will that same behaviour have different results once they receive globally routable IP addresses for each device? I think it will.
And I also think that there will be IPv6 compatible magic boxes that do NOT have firewall capability up for sale very soon. It's just cheaper to NOT have certain functionality and that means saving $5 or so on the device. In essence, they will be just a cheap switch/wireless-bridge that plugs into the Comcast cable modem.
And those devices will, initially, appear to have MORE functionality as the end-users won't have to go through additional steps configuring the firewall to connect to other gamers / torrents / whatever.
And that's not considering the end-users who will turn off the firewall functionality of the firewall/wireless-bridge/router devices because it "makes everything work".
With almost all politicians (except the ones YOU like, of course) the "message" is the message. Asking questions is useless unless you're gathering material for The Daily Show or Colbert.
No matter how uninformed a candidate is, the fans will still be fans.
It isn't about picking the best candidate based upon your criteria. It's about using your flexible criteria to justify the politician / party that you've already emotionally decided upon.
Some of them also assume that we remember everything we learned in the previous semester as if it was yesterday. Over the summer, I forgot most all of the trig identities I memorized in the spring semester because I never use them in real life.
Take a weekend and re-read the book from last semester then. If you've sold it already, check it out of the library.
You need to learn how to STUDY. This is a problem with kids who were too smart in high school. They never learned to study because all the material was too simple to stress them. Once they hit harder subjects, they flounder.
I'm still doing this with material I learn for work. I'll re-read material over and over until I know it automatically. And then I'll re-read it every year or so just so I don't forget it. Once you understand it, re-reading it takes very little time.
Look at the emphasis on sports in high school and college. And no one is talking much about the "attrition" rate where high school / college athletes don't make pro.
How about a science program with the same model?
Kids are identified in high school and they take extra classes after school and in the summer so that when they do get to college they've already completed the 1st year classes in their last year of high school.
With scholarships pretty much guaranteed for the kids in the program.
The banks are NOT "losing money" because of these rules. They are still turning a profit. A huge profit.
They ARE "losing profit". That being, they are NOT making as huge a profit as they could be making if they were allowed to charge whatever the market had to bear.
Here's an easy example: "Losing money" is when you build a game console for $100 and sell it for $50. You LOSE $50 on each transaction.
The banks are NOT losing any money on these transactions. Each transaction is still TURNING A PROFIT for the banks.
Just make sure that the bank (BoA in your case) doesn't charge you fees for low balances. If they do, you'll have to keep your balance above that level to avoid the fees.
All that for a service that SHOULD BE STOPPED WHEN YOU CLOSE THE ACCOUNT.
The companies that you have automatic payments going to have a process in place for when they don't get the payment. Usually it involves letting you know (via email or mail or phone) that your card was declined.
Banks are the banksters' way to gamble trillions - except they are gambling with tax payers' money (because even if their stupid gamble backfires, the taxpayer bails them out).
Remember the S&L troubles, too?
The problem is that when those institutions gamble and WIN, the profits are privatized. The profits go to the gamblers. Which encourages others to take the same risks.
But if the gamble fails, then the loses are socialized. They get a bailout from the government or they move the problem assets to another company and let that fail or they get the government to "insure" those assets.
And they're doing the same thing with bad car loans now.
If the bank is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist. Break it up and let the "free market" deal with their gambles.
Also, get the regulations in place. There should be no way to insure crap so that it gets a triple-A rating.
Yep, they've put that $5 on hold for now. But they'll look for different ways to stick you with additional fees. They want to keep increasing revenue. And you're the source of that revenue.
On a related note, when you switch banks, make sure you know EVERYTHING about your transactions. Too many stories out there about how someone missed an automatic payment (annual or some other kind) and the bank re-opened their account, charged them and then charged them an overdraft fee. Even when the account was SUPPOSED to be closed.
I don't expect you do this for every crazy piece of hardware out there, but it would nice if you could be *helpful* as I try to figure it out myself.
The PROBLEM is that every single person out there has the same attitude towards "support" that you do.
With you it is your iPhone. With someone else it is something else. A third person has a third product. And pretty soon it is "every crazy piece of hardware" (and software and website and so forth).
At a basic level, I expect my IT department to not *actively* disallow use of such technology, which is what I see all the time, departments who see no middle ground between "100% supported" and "not on my network ever".
The problem is that if IT provides 50% support for X... there will be calls from people wanting help with something that falls on the other 50% of X. Eventually it is 100% support.
If you want that to change, then get a business case together and get management's approval and IT will get the additional funding / staffing / whatever to provide the support.
Otherwise, deal with it. IT is there to support the management approved users on the management approved software with the management approved hardware.
Why not start with a basic firewall on the prison's network?
They DO have a firewall, right? For the legitimate Internet traffic of the guards and the administrators, right? Right?
Or, just don't run an Ethernet connection to the cell. I mean, having an Ethernet cable would be an issue anyway! Why even provide a data jack for them to use?
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
"Yeah, we got rid of some regulations and some planes crashed but that's okay because those airlines went out of businesses and the executives got jobs with other airlines."
Strange. Because wouldn't the existing airlines be happy to buy the new company and then use the "new, cheaper, more innovative" tech to undercut their competitors?
If you can do the work cheaper, you can charge slightly less than your competition and still make a bigger profit.
Isn't that one of the tenets of Capitalism?
That doesn't even make sense. Patents are one, very specific, form of "regulation". And software patents in particular are a very, very, very specific form of "regulation".
Yet you immediately went with the general category of "regulation".
Why?
Certification is NOT the same as patents.
Why are you trying to associate the two different concepts?
First, make that a period rather than a comma.
Second, again, you're trying to associate two different concepts.
Requirements are not patents.
Certifications are not patents.
Regulations (in general) are not patents.
I'd disagree with that. The "regulatory requirements" (in what appears to the case you're describing) are there to check that the systems meet the safety requirements of the FAA.
I'm okay with the FAA having requirements on software/hardware when the risk is something falling out of the sky.
I don't see that.
I do see the Fortune 500 abusing the patent system to create hurdles for the small businesses.
But getting FAA approval ... no, I don't see that as a hurdle from the Fortune 500 put up that needs to be reduced.
Particularly when you confuse regulations, requirements and certifications with patents.
Do you really need me to answer that?
It was available for legal purchase OVER THE COUNTER until 1914. And yet our country survived those terrible, terrible cocaine fueled years.
As long as crime pays, there will be people who try to cash in on it.
Some of those people will form groups to facilitate their crimes.
Nothing will ever end "organized crime". But that doesn't matter as long as it is weaker than the central government. So that should be the first goal.
Then, clean up the central government.
Anything that is illegal will generate revenue for organized crime.
Legalize it.
Localize it (grown in the USofA by Unionized farmers)
Regulate it
Tax it
Take the tax revenue and fund free recovery clinics and anti-drug drives.
There are LOTS of people out there who can use "recreational" drugs without negatively impacting society (aside from the money going to the cartels who KILL PEOPLE). The same as most of the people who buy alcohol don't go out and smash their cars into other cars.
Tax the product so that the percentage of people who CAN use it responsibly pay for the treatment of those who CANNOT.
How would that work? Bullets are small and cheap.
It might "have a much more significant impact" but it is impossible to achieve.
But moving the revenue stream from the cartels to a legitimate government is easier to accomplish. The same as was done with Prohibition here.
Well, except for the "protection rackets" and smuggling (gotta love the tax differentials between cities / states that make that profitable) and so forth.
But I'll take "declined rapidly" over the situation during Prohibition.
It's supply and demand. Saying "bad behavior" is a moral statement.
The same as "demon rum" during Prohibition.
Reducing their income means that they have less money.
And money is the reason that they're taking money from the people in the areas they control.
The problem is that bullets are cheap. It's going to be a long, bloody war no matter what happens. But reducing their income means that it will be shorter and less bloody.
Mexico is falling into warlordism.
The central government is ineffective / complicit.
Legalizing drugs would move the money FROM the cartels TO the legal growers AND the government (taxes).
There's a lot that has to happen to legalize the drugs. But it is the first step in this situation.
The insurance business is HIGHLY regulated. The CEO (and BoD) know EXACTLY what is in their investments because they can only write policies for X times the amount of money they have.
If their investments LOSE money, that means they lose MORE insurance business.
Again, your position seems to require very specific ignorance from the CEO and the BoD.
Yeah, again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
Yeah, again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
The CEO and the BoD didn't know (or bother to learn) what their companies were investing in because there was too much for them to do and the division doing the investing was small (despite being allowed to take on enough debt to kill the company) and even if the CEO did look into it (because he needed to know how much insurance he could issue based upon his investment) he would not have been able to understand it and that would be perfectly okay with him.
Again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
Yes. In fact, I would have a division (possibly called "Accounting" or something) with people dedicated to monitoring it and checking the cash flow. Maybe I'd even have a "C" level executive reporting to me who monitored things like that . Maybe I'd call that person the Chief Financial Officer.
I might even have things I would maybe call "internal audits" just to make sure that the cash / investments were where I thought they should be. To find/prevent something I'd call "embezzlement" (because I like z's).
Again, again, again. That's VERY specific ignorance required to support your position.
The worry is that they'd tap your calls and send everything back to China.
Yep, I know, the USofA may already be tapping your calls.
Like I said before, that's some amazingly specific ignorance on the part of the CEO and the BoD.
And yet they lobbied Congress to NOT regulate the stuff they did NOT know was going on in the division that they never bothered to check. Despite that division racking up massive debt for the company.
And yet you postulate that the CEO and BoD did NOT know what was going on in that division that was making all the money that they like so much.
Again, that's a very specific form or ignorance.
I like money. But if my bank accounts start showing more than I expect them to, I'm going to investigate.
Really? The CEO thought that it would be a good idea to have a division taking on massive debt for the company without oversight?
Wow!
And the board of directors agreed with the CEO?
Double wow!
So not only didn't the CEO and the BoD know what was happening in a division that reported to them AND was allowed to take on massive debt ... but that same CEO actively lobbied Congress to prevent regulations that would require limits on that division that he did not know about.
All the while, taking in HUGE profits and bonuses.
That is some amazingly specific ignorance for a CEO.
I mean, if my bank account suddenly started going up much faster than I had calculated, I'd probably do some investigating to see where the additional money was coming from.
So the bonuses do NOT reflect their performance.
Isn't that exactly what people have been saying? No matter how bad they do, they get bonuses, because the bonuses are not tied to performance (no matter what the claims are).
Instead, it is friends awarding friends more money from the company's coffers. As long as there is money in the company, the bonuses will be awarded. Even if the company is in danger of failing and putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work.
Those same friends are the ones who wrote those contracts.
Fuck them. Fire them and invalidate the contracts. At least the lawyers will have something productive to do.
No, I don't. And you probably mean PAT, not NAT.
No it does not. The same as IPv4 does not require a firewall.
But, many end-users purchase an EXTERNAL firewall in order to get the PAT functionality so that they can run multiple devices (and wireless) on the single IP address that their ISP provides them.
So, in order for them to overcome the limitations of IPv4 (fewer IP addresses) they, inadvertently, purchase a firewall that improves their security.
I have no idea what you're thinking of.
Again, because with IPv6 there is no need for the ISP to limit the end-user to a single IP address. So the end-user can purchase different devices (such as a switch with a wireless bridge) that would allow the same PERCEIVED functionality with IPv6 as they get with IPv4 and a firewall/PAT device today.
And the point being that the end-user does NOT understand that TODAY. And cannot be expected to understand it when Comcast rolls out IPv6.
Having globally routable addresses means that if the end-user's home network is mis-configured from a security stand-point, their devices could still "work" from the perspective of the end-user. They would still be able to access the Internet.
Right now, with IPv4, that is less likely for the end-user.
And ...
Why didn't they know the risk? Why did they get that plan approved?
At a certain point you have to understand that the people doing this were not stupid. They knew that they were taking risks.
And as long as the risks paid off, they pulled in lots of money.
But ... as with ALL systems like this, EVENTUALLY the risk does not pay off. And then the company has to cover the loss.
That is the problem. They weren't stupid. They were just betting that they would retire/move BEFORE the risks failed. And since it brought in tons of cash for AIG, the same thought process was shared by management. Get the money while the getting is good and just hope that you aren't the one left holding the loss when it collapses.
Which is why we had REGULATIONS about how these things work.
So the banks were able to lobby Congress to get the regulations removed / reduced / overlooked / whatever.
The people who drove the companies they worked for to the brink of failure received bonuses.
I don't think "best talent" applies in this discussion.
The current situation provides some level of security for the end-user ... even if the end-user does not understand the concepts.
The get 1 IP address from their ISP and they buy a magic box that provides them lots of sockets to plug stuff into and wireless access. They don't know if they're running NAT or PAT or what the difference is between stateless and stateful.
But will that same behaviour have different results once they receive globally routable IP addresses for each device? I think it will.
And I also think that there will be IPv6 compatible magic boxes that do NOT have firewall capability up for sale very soon. It's just cheaper to NOT have certain functionality and that means saving $5 or so on the device. In essence, they will be just a cheap switch/wireless-bridge that plugs into the Comcast cable modem.
And those devices will, initially, appear to have MORE functionality as the end-users won't have to go through additional steps configuring the firewall to connect to other gamers / torrents / whatever.
And that's not considering the end-users who will turn off the firewall functionality of the firewall/wireless-bridge/router devices because it "makes everything work".
With almost all politicians (except the ones YOU like, of course) the "message" is the message. Asking questions is useless unless you're gathering material for The Daily Show or Colbert.
No matter how uninformed a candidate is, the fans will still be fans.
It isn't about picking the best candidate based upon your criteria.
It's about using your flexible criteria to justify the politician / party that you've already emotionally decided upon.
Take a weekend and re-read the book from last semester then. If you've sold it already, check it out of the library.
You need to learn how to STUDY. This is a problem with kids who were too smart in high school. They never learned to study because all the material was too simple to stress them. Once they hit harder subjects, they flounder.
I'm still doing this with material I learn for work. I'll re-read material over and over until I know it automatically. And then I'll re-read it every year or so just so I don't forget it. Once you understand it, re-reading it takes very little time.
Look at the emphasis on sports in high school and college. And no one is talking much about the "attrition" rate where high school / college athletes don't make pro.
How about a science program with the same model?
Kids are identified in high school and they take extra classes after school and in the summer so that when they do get to college they've already completed the 1st year classes in their last year of high school.
With scholarships pretty much guaranteed for the kids in the program.
The banks are NOT "losing money" because of these rules. They are still turning a profit. A huge profit.
They ARE "losing profit".
That being, they are NOT making as huge a profit as they could be making if they were allowed to charge whatever the market had to bear.
Here's an easy example:
"Losing money" is when you build a game console for $100 and sell it for $50. You LOSE $50 on each transaction.
The banks are NOT losing any money on these transactions. Each transaction is still TURNING A PROFIT for the banks.
But the banks want BIGGER PROFITS.
Just make sure that the bank (BoA in your case) doesn't charge you fees for low balances. If they do, you'll have to keep your balance above that level to avoid the fees.
All that for a service that SHOULD BE STOPPED WHEN YOU CLOSE THE ACCOUNT.
The companies that you have automatic payments going to have a process in place for when they don't get the payment. Usually it involves letting you know (via email or mail or phone) that your card was declined.
Remember the S&L troubles, too?
The problem is that when those institutions gamble and WIN, the profits are privatized. The profits go to the gamblers. Which encourages others to take the same risks.
But if the gamble fails, then the loses are socialized. They get a bailout from the government or they move the problem assets to another company and let that fail or they get the government to "insure" those assets.
And they're doing the same thing with bad car loans now.
If the bank is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist. Break it up and let the "free market" deal with their gambles.
Also, get the regulations in place. There should be no way to insure crap so that it gets a triple-A rating.
Yep, they've put that $5 on hold for now.
But they'll look for different ways to stick you with additional fees.
They want to keep increasing revenue. And you're the source of that revenue.
On a related note, when you switch banks, make sure you know EVERYTHING about your transactions. Too many stories out there about how someone missed an automatic payment (annual or some other kind) and the bank re-opened their account, charged them and then charged them an overdraft fee. Even when the account was SUPPOSED to be closed.
The GP has no idea what "support" means.
The PROBLEM is that every single person out there has the same attitude towards "support" that you do.
With you it is your iPhone.
With someone else it is something else.
A third person has a third product.
And pretty soon it is "every crazy piece of hardware" (and software and website and so forth).
The problem is that if IT provides 50% support for X ... there will be calls from people wanting help with something that falls on the other 50% of X. Eventually it is 100% support.
If you want that to change, then get a business case together and get management's approval and IT will get the additional funding / staffing / whatever to provide the support.
Otherwise, deal with it. IT is there to support the management approved users on the management approved software with the management approved hardware.
Why not start with a basic firewall on the prison's network?
They DO have a firewall, right? For the legitimate Internet traffic of the guards and the administrators, right? Right?
Or, just don't run an Ethernet connection to the cell. I mean, having an Ethernet cable would be an issue anyway! Why even provide a data jack for them to use?
From the update to TFA:
So not only is the guy refusing to release the record, but he's now threatening legal action because people are calling him names and being mean.
When your in a hole, rule #1 - stop digging.