So you are claiming that the 1920s were "grinding pain and poverty".
Sure it all ended in tears when the speculative bubble burst, but the years following that 1920-21 recession weren't called the "Roaring 20s" for nothing.
And that might be the reason for bailouts, but since they don't actually work to do that all you get is the make the bankers rich side effect.
If less competition is due to businesses failing then yes it's a good thing. In fact it's the basis of capitalism.
When times are good anyone can make a profit (well of course someone always proves that wrong), when times aren't so good the inefficient producers are squeezed out and go out of business. This frees up their capital for use by the existing efficient businesses or in the creation of new businesses.
So yes, less competition is beneficial as it results in better resource allocation. Of course there's a limit - you don't want a oligopoly (well sometimes you can't avoid that some high cost high barrier to entry areas) or monopoly forming.
Yoda isn't ruined. Simply because it makes no sense to watch the prequels first. Think of it as repressed recent history that is now that the emperor is dead it's a big story in flashback.
Otherwise, it's not just Yoda. Nothing makes sense. The happenings of the prequels just can't result in what happens in the original movies.
Revenge of the Sith is one of those films that might be ok if it was just an every day actiopn flick. But it's supposed to be the story of the Anakin->Vader corruption/transition/conversion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it and it fails miserably given the potential. It wasn't helped by the idiocy of I and II with respect to Anakin
Of course given ROTJ I'm still amazed anyone had any hopes about the prequels (I didn't bother seeing any of them at the cinema).
You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.
So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.
No. Well maybe to anarchists. And extreme libertarians.
Is regulating whether I should drive on the left or the right hand side of the road bad? Is regulating how much vinyl chloride I can dump into the public water supply bad?
Regulations on money transfers is completely ordinary and doesn't reflect on India at all, other than making the US happier with them.
Try transferring $50k into the US from India - it's not at the Indian end that that is going to be delayed and checked the longest.
Try transferring money from an foreign online casino into a US bank account.
Seriously, there's nothing negative at all in any of those links (well I'm sure there is in the comments on the link to another slashdot article, but that article itself isn't) or in the summary.
The claim of "I don't really call any hack that requires "physical access" to be a genuine danger" against a device that is designed to secure against physical access (that is after all why you need the acid...) is what I disagreed with.
Except that almost the entire reason for a TPM chip it to secure against those with physical access. So you can't just declare that physical access invalidates it.
All security is breakable - given enough time and money. So all security is just a trade-off how much are you willing to spend and how much inconvenience can you take versus how serious an attack do you need to be secure against.
Is your house built with bank vault doors and walls and floor and ceiling? Does the door have a lock anyway?
No different than paying them in cash. It's compensation, something has to be transferred from the company (i.e. the stockholders) to the guy being paid.
If it's cash then the company has less cash on the books and has more expenses (and hence less profit) which should reduce what it is worth and hence the share price. If it's shares then the share price will be reduced by dilution for the same end result.
If the stock goes up the mutual fund looks good and the performance metrics will attract some more clients. If the stock goes down, who cares it's the idiot client's money anyway.
If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders. Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.
The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want. Short term performance, and who cares about the long term. Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter's performance numbers.
That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant, they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter. And since they make up the bulk of the owners that's how it is supposed to work.
If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done. Short term stock price incentives, however, are just about the worst way possible to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Increasing the money supply by 60% and launching a speculative bubble the likes of which we didn't see again for 80 years is "hands-off"?
So you are claiming that the 1920s were "grinding pain and poverty".
Sure it all ended in tears when the speculative bubble burst, but the years following that 1920-21 recession weren't called the "Roaring 20s" for nothing.
And that might be the reason for bailouts, but since they don't actually work to do that all you get is the make the bankers rich side effect.
If less competition is due to businesses failing then yes it's a good thing. In fact it's the basis of capitalism.
When times are good anyone can make a profit (well of course someone always proves that wrong), when times aren't so good the inefficient producers are squeezed out and go out of business. This frees up their capital for use by the existing efficient businesses or in the creation of new businesses.
So yes, less competition is beneficial as it results in better resource allocation. Of course there's a limit - you don't want a oligopoly (well sometimes you can't avoid that some high cost high barrier to entry areas) or monopoly forming.
Thanks for repeating the summary for us.
It's almost impossible for cheating to happen more than I'd think in a CS class.
Back when I taught I used a really simple plagiarism detection program - so simple that implementing it was one of the class assignments.
You don't need to do any of the advanced stuff since the people who cheat are too either too dumb or too lazy to hide things well.
Nah...
AI just means "it doesn't work".
Since once it does work it isn't AI anymore, it's just an algorithm.
Yoda isn't ruined. Simply because it makes no sense to watch the prequels first. Think of it as repressed recent history that is now that the emperor is dead it's a big story in flashback.
Otherwise, it's not just Yoda. Nothing makes sense. The happenings of the prequels just can't result in what happens in the original movies.
Revenge of the Sith is one of those films that might be ok if it was just an every day actiopn flick. But it's supposed to be the story of the Anakin->Vader corruption/transition/conversion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it and it fails miserably given the potential. It wasn't helped by the idiocy of I and II with respect to Anakin
Of course given ROTJ I'm still amazed anyone had any hopes about the prequels (I didn't bother seeing any of them at the cinema).
Where "enough research" would be just skimming through the article you decided to use as evidence for your ridiculous assertion?
That's a mighty low bar you've set there.
Yes, obeying US export restrictions is propaganda.
They should just ignore them and go to prison so you feel better in your paranoid world.
My teachers always said to "not do things by halves". I had typed a slightly milder country, but figured might as well go all the way.
You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.
So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.
I has a similar situation.
The patriot act was the final straw for me and what ultimately forced my hand. I have migrated to North Korea and will never look back.
The rest of us read more than the first two words.
No. Well maybe to anarchists. And extreme libertarians.
Is regulating whether I should drive on the left or the right hand side of the road bad? Is regulating how much vinyl chloride I can dump into the public water supply bad?
Regulations on money transfers is completely ordinary and doesn't reflect on India at all, other than making the US happier with them.
Try transferring $50k into the US from India - it's not at the Indian end that that is going to be delayed and checked the longest.
Try transferring money from an foreign online casino into a US bank account.
What negative portrayal of India is there here?
Seriously, there's nothing negative at all in any of those links (well I'm sure there is in the comments on the link to another slashdot article, but that article itself isn't) or in the summary.
1. The want to know about it so they can tax it.
2. They don't want foreign funding of domestic terrorists.
3. They don't want criminals to have yet another way to move money around.
4. They want to protect their export industry by not having that "favorable" effect on exchange rates.
The ease isn't the issue.
The claim of "I don't really call any hack that requires "physical access" to be a genuine danger" against a device that is designed to secure against physical access (that is after all why you need the acid...) is what I disagreed with.
Except that almost the entire reason for a TPM chip it to secure against those with physical access. So you can't just declare that physical access invalidates it.
Bullshit.
All security is breakable - given enough time and money. So all security is just a trade-off how much are you willing to spend and how much inconvenience can you take versus how serious an attack do you need to be secure against.
Is your house built with bank vault doors and walls and floor and ceiling? Does the door have a lock anyway?
I remember people who pirated Quake 2 and then played it for 2 hours a day for the next 3 years - I don't think value for money enters the equation.
There's also the "getting the game before the release" aspect that people seem to like.
In which case the shareholders should vote out the board. That they don't implies they don't mind such idiocy.
No different than paying them in cash. It's compensation, something has to be transferred from the company (i.e. the stockholders) to the guy being paid.
If it's cash then the company has less cash on the books and has more expenses (and hence less profit) which should reduce what it is worth and hence the share price. If it's shares then the share price will be reduced by dilution for the same end result.
Because that is the stockholder view as well.
If the stock goes up the mutual fund looks good and the performance metrics will attract some more clients. If the stock goes down, who cares it's the idiot client's money anyway.
If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders. Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.
The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want. Short term performance, and who cares about the long term. Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter's performance numbers.
That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant, they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter. And since they make up the bulk of the owners that's how it is supposed to work.
If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done. Short term stock price incentives, however, are just about the worst way possible to do that.
So buying a stock that doesn't pay a dividend is gambling, but buying one that does isn't?
What about buying a stock that pays a dividend with the intention to sell it in the near future without ever holding it on a dividend date?
Those activities should be made illegal I take it?