From the article, it sounds like there was already an investigation in process. His admission of guilt on TV was just an extra nail in the coffin that may have convinced the cops to move in earlier, but this guy was going down either way.
Perhaps the guys at MSFT have more foresight than they're given credit for. They know that ARM-based systems are going to grow in popularity. They know that the #1 reason people buy Windows in reverse compatibility. So how do they get people to start using Windows on ARM? By introducing, several years earlier, the OOXML "standard". Get businesses to start using it. Then release Windows for ARM which, while it can't run most Windows apps, can open OOXML documents natively.
To add some anecdotal evidence, a few of my co-workers own Windows phones. None of them like the phones, and all of them says they'd prefer Android/iPhone, but that they got the Windows phone because of how well it handles their office documents.
The title song from Civilization 4 won a Grammy this year, becoming the first song from a video game to do so. I wonder if that had anything to do with their decision? As is often the case, you need really top-notch, undeniable talent to break down the barrier. Once it's broken, things get easier.
Confiscate your iPod, show that you own song X. Look through your financials, show that you never purchased song X as an MP3. I'm pretty sure you can't buy MP3s with cash.
That said, you're right. This law isn't about making everyone a crook, as popular a sentiment as that may be on Slashdot. If that were the cause, then surely there would be some example of the law being used in that way.
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
The Republicans will not "get behind" anything until and unless Obama is out of office. That is their only priority right now. Health care reform was basically their proposal from '93. They not only opposed it, but made up outrageous lies about it. Free end-of-life counseling in particular was proposed by one of them, before they turned around and called it "death panels".
The cap-and-trade system is a free market solution to environmental problems which had been supported by numerous conservatives not long ago. They filibustered it to death.
Wall street reform, the end of DADT, and the new START treaty with Russia are all common sense things that the public wanted and that you'd think everyone would get behind. Instead, each got just barely enough GOP votes to pass, and would not pass with Congress's new make-up.
They condemned Obama for not intervening in Libya fast enough, and then a week later condemned him for intervening at all.
The simple fact is that they care nothing for policy. They have one goal and one goal only - complete power over the Federal government. When you view them through that lens, everything makes sense. They have to oppose everything Obama does in order to make him look radical, when anyone with a brain can see that if anything he's too centrist. They have to tear down groups that vote for Democrats, by dismantling unions, making it harder for college students to vote, and cutting off all support for the poor -- ending WIC checks, shutting down Planned Parenthood, framing ACORN, a trillion dollars proposed cuts to Medicaid, reducing unemployment benefits, etc... They won't stop until they have complete dominion over the country, and they will use what power they have to punish any group that dares to oppose them.
It is the CEO's responsibility to make sure that shit like this doesn't happen under his watch. If you accept the argument that some middle manager did it, then every corporate crime will end with some poor sap getting thrown under the bus.
Investigate the company. Subpoena all of their emails, their memos, minutes from their meetings, and try to establish that the CEO knew about it. If he did, or reasonably could have, then lock him up. If the investigators are satisfied that it really was just a rogue employee, then fine, but past behavior by corporate "citizens" have made it naive to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Use one of many free programs to extract your product key from the registry. Download a copy of the OS from dubiously-legal website of your choice. Install OS, using your own key instead of whatever crack was provided.
I've done it myself, it's very easy. Not easy enough for grandpa, but that's what grandkids are for, and you certainly don't need to cough up the extra $200.
When you think about it, though, there also seems to be zero incentive for a layperson to edit Wikipedia. The question is how to get academics to feel the same type of intrinsic motivation to edit as everyone else does.
But not everyone does. Only a tiny percentage of people feel the need to edit Wikipedia. Out of the billion or so people with the ability to edit it, that leaves you with plenty of editors. Out of the thousands of quantum physicists or neurosurgeons, it leaves you with maybe one, who is probably too busy to make frequent contributions.
Has the scenario you outlined ever happened, even once, in all of history?
Smartphones - when did MS call them a fad, and what "ton of additional bloat" is there in the Windows phones? From what I've seen, they're more streamlined then the competition (note that streamlining isn't always good).
Music players - outside of Slashdot, who ever called the iPod a lame fad? What bloat was there in the Zune?
Tablet PCs - just got started, so who's to say if they're going to add bloat when/if they enter the market?
Game consoles - never called a fad, no "bloat" when they entered, and now they're a dominant player in the market.
Search Engine - definitely never called a fad, and not really bloated. You could make an argument that their short-lived "enhanced Wikipedia pages" feature was bloat, but that's about it.
OS/Office software - never called a fad, definitely bloated, but then every software company seems to be in a race to beat Moore's law.
You realize they can't just snap their fingers and have a tablet appear, ready for the market, correct? They have to invest money to make one. If they think that the money invested won't be worth the money earned, then they are making the right call.
Actually, since you spelled their name with a dollar sign, you probably understand no such thing, and are really just fantasizing about what you wish would happen.
The reason Apple can ride the bubble is that they created it. Their skillful advertising, combined with the fact that they're a media darling, convinced people that they needed something that no sane person needs. Objectively, a tablet is a laptop without a keyboard or the ability to do a lot of things laptops do, but with a higher price tag. The only reason to own one is that they're fashionable and hip.
The NYT was one of the leaders in covering everything put out by Wikileaks. While the cable news networks were running with the "Is Assange a Rapist?" drek, the NYT had the leaks on front page week after week with in depth analysis of every file they could get their hands on. Are you telling me they got approval to cover all that stuff?
There's only so much insolation to harvest. If this is cheaper and higher efficiency than existing solar cells, then great. Based on the article, it's only 5.5% efficient, so meh. But even if it were 100% efficient, it's not some magical free energy machine, and never can be. While it's true that "nearly all the energy we use on this planet starts out as sunlight", a lot of that energy arrived at earth several millenia ago. In the long run, we're going to need to either use less energy (preferably by making things more efficient, not making do with fewer things) and/or get some near-unlimited fuel source, like fusion.
Only now, with RFC 1924, you don't even need to pick a random number. Just smash your face into the keyboard a couple times, and voila: 4)+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Yp! A perfectly usable address!
That's a really interesting design, thanks for posting it. However, from their paper (paywall) it seems like the RBW (to use the spectrum analyzer term) is dependent on how many of these filters you put in. If you want a fine resolution over a wide band, you're going to need hundreds of these things per decade, and thousands overall. Certainly possible, and I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them before long, but maybe not that much cheaper than conventional spec ans -- remember, a lot of that $10k price tag is for software, support, testing, calibration, etc. And they won't be replacing conventional spec ans, because it doesn't seem like this tech is scalable down to really fine bandwidths (~1 Hz RBW).
Also, I disagree on the cochlea being incorporated into every mobile RF device. There's no reason for most devices to care what's going on outside of their operating band, so why waste space and power on this? It certainly isn't sensitive enough to replace the receiver, especially not while taking up less space.
That's completely impossible. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to make transceivers capable of using the entire spectrum? Do you know how long it would take for your wireless mouse to bind if it had to sweep through the entire spectrum to find the host? Want to change the radio station in your car? Better be prepared to wait a few minutes while it sweeps back and forth across the spectrum trying to find the channel (which itself is hopping around).
And even if it were possible, it would be stupid, because certain frequencies are better for certain things.
Millions of people took out these loans because the bank officials told them that it was okay, that that was just how things worked, that they had nothing to worry about, etc. Like it or not, people have a tendency to trust authority figures. If a psychiatrist uses their position of authority to convince a patient to have sex with them, it's considered a sex crime (not to mention a major breach of ethics). If a police officer convinces a person to commit a crime, it's entrapment. But when a bank official convinces someone that it's okay to lie about their income to get a loan, knowing full well that that person will default and that the bank will make a fortune off it, suddenly the person losing their home is the crook and the bank is harmless?
Summary, since no one RTFA's: Guy takes out "liar" loan from bank, after much encouragement from Countrywide (now BoA) Guy defaults on loan, like so many others, losing his home. Bankers make millions. Guy runs a marathon for charity across the Sahara Desert Federal agent sees marathon coverage, thinks "How can some working stiff afford to do that? He should be keeping his head down like the rest of the slaves!" Feds send hot undercover agent to flirt with the guy, extract a confession Guy sent to jail, ordered to pay a quarter million dollars restitution to Bank of America
In short, while you're robbing the banks from within, not only do you have no worries about being prosecuted -- the people you're robbing can be prosecuted and forced to pay you even more!
You're describing the financial sector as it existed in the 70s. Back then, it really was about helping businesses grow and finding the next big idea. These days, the pigs on top have discovered that they can get WAY more money by playing around with "creative" instruments. Like bundle a bunch of bad loans, sell them claiming their good loans, and then bet money that they'll fail. Or buy a healthy company, make them layoff of a bunch of their workers so that their stock price jumps, and then sell. Shit like that doesn't create wealth; it just steals it.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article, it sounds like there was already an investigation in process. His admission of guilt on TV was just an extra nail in the coffin that may have convinced the cops to move in earlier, but this guy was going down either way.
Perhaps the guys at MSFT have more foresight than they're given credit for. They know that ARM-based systems are going to grow in popularity. They know that the #1 reason people buy Windows in reverse compatibility. So how do they get people to start using Windows on ARM? By introducing, several years earlier, the OOXML "standard". Get businesses to start using it. Then release Windows for ARM which, while it can't run most Windows apps, can open OOXML documents natively.
To add some anecdotal evidence, a few of my co-workers own Windows phones. None of them like the phones, and all of them says they'd prefer Android/iPhone, but that they got the Windows phone because of how well it handles their office documents.
The title song from Civilization 4 won a Grammy this year, becoming the first song from a video game to do so. I wonder if that had anything to do with their decision? As is often the case, you need really top-notch, undeniable talent to break down the barrier. Once it's broken, things get easier.
Confiscate your iPod, show that you own song X. Look through your financials, show that you never purchased song X as an MP3. I'm pretty sure you can't buy MP3s with cash.
That said, you're right. This law isn't about making everyone a crook, as popular a sentiment as that may be on Slashdot. If that were the cause, then surely there would be some example of the law being used in that way.
I wonder if you'll be so glib when one of your loved ones dies.
The people who ever believed it was anything but a hoax aren't likely to believe the debunking.
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
The Republicans will not "get behind" anything until and unless Obama is out of office. That is their only priority right now. Health care reform was basically their proposal from '93. They not only opposed it, but made up outrageous lies about it. Free end-of-life counseling in particular was proposed by one of them, before they turned around and called it "death panels".
The cap-and-trade system is a free market solution to environmental problems which had been supported by numerous conservatives not long ago. They filibustered it to death.
Wall street reform, the end of DADT, and the new START treaty with Russia are all common sense things that the public wanted and that you'd think everyone would get behind. Instead, each got just barely enough GOP votes to pass, and would not pass with Congress's new make-up.
They condemned Obama for not intervening in Libya fast enough, and then a week later condemned him for intervening at all.
The simple fact is that they care nothing for policy. They have one goal and one goal only - complete power over the Federal government. When you view them through that lens, everything makes sense. They have to oppose everything Obama does in order to make him look radical, when anyone with a brain can see that if anything he's too centrist. They have to tear down groups that vote for Democrats, by dismantling unions, making it harder for college students to vote, and cutting off all support for the poor -- ending WIC checks, shutting down Planned Parenthood, framing ACORN, a trillion dollars proposed cuts to Medicaid, reducing unemployment benefits, etc... They won't stop until they have complete dominion over the country, and they will use what power they have to punish any group that dares to oppose them.
It is the CEO's responsibility to make sure that shit like this doesn't happen under his watch. If you accept the argument that some middle manager did it, then every corporate crime will end with some poor sap getting thrown under the bus.
Investigate the company. Subpoena all of their emails, their memos, minutes from their meetings, and try to establish that the CEO knew about it. If he did, or reasonably could have, then lock him up. If the investigators are satisfied that it really was just a rogue employee, then fine, but past behavior by corporate "citizens" have made it naive to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Use one of many free programs to extract your product key from the registry.
Download a copy of the OS from dubiously-legal website of your choice.
Install OS, using your own key instead of whatever crack was provided.
I've done it myself, it's very easy. Not easy enough for grandpa, but that's what grandkids are for, and you certainly don't need to cough up the extra $200.
What's to stop the trolls from simply lying on their resume?
When you think about it, though, there also seems to be zero incentive for a layperson to edit Wikipedia. The question is how to get academics to feel the same type of intrinsic motivation to edit as everyone else does.
But not everyone does. Only a tiny percentage of people feel the need to edit Wikipedia. Out of the billion or so people with the ability to edit it, that leaves you with plenty of editors. Out of the thousands of quantum physicists or neurosurgeons, it leaves you with maybe one, who is probably too busy to make frequent contributions.
Has the scenario you outlined ever happened, even once, in all of history?
Smartphones - when did MS call them a fad, and what "ton of additional bloat" is there in the Windows phones? From what I've seen, they're more streamlined then the competition (note that streamlining isn't always good).
Music players - outside of Slashdot, who ever called the iPod a lame fad? What bloat was there in the Zune?
Tablet PCs - just got started, so who's to say if they're going to add bloat when/if they enter the market?
Game consoles - never called a fad, no "bloat" when they entered, and now they're a dominant player in the market.
Search Engine - definitely never called a fad, and not really bloated. You could make an argument that their short-lived "enhanced Wikipedia pages" feature was bloat, but that's about it.
OS/Office software - never called a fad, definitely bloated, but then every software company seems to be in a race to beat Moore's law.
You realize they can't just snap their fingers and have a tablet appear, ready for the market, correct? They have to invest money to make one. If they think that the money invested won't be worth the money earned, then they are making the right call.
Actually, since you spelled their name with a dollar sign, you probably understand no such thing, and are really just fantasizing about what you wish would happen.
The reason Apple can ride the bubble is that they created it. Their skillful advertising, combined with the fact that they're a media darling, convinced people that they needed something that no sane person needs. Objectively, a tablet is a laptop without a keyboard or the ability to do a lot of things laptops do, but with a higher price tag. The only reason to own one is that they're fashionable and hip.
The NYT was one of the leaders in covering everything put out by Wikileaks. While the cable news networks were running with the "Is Assange a Rapist?" drek, the NYT had the leaks on front page week after week with in depth analysis of every file they could get their hands on. Are you telling me they got approval to cover all that stuff?
Whoosh...
There's only so much insolation to harvest. If this is cheaper and higher efficiency than existing solar cells, then great. Based on the article, it's only 5.5% efficient, so meh. But even if it were 100% efficient, it's not some magical free energy machine, and never can be. While it's true that "nearly all the energy we use on this planet starts out as sunlight", a lot of that energy arrived at earth several millenia ago. In the long run, we're going to need to either use less energy (preferably by making things more efficient, not making do with fewer things) and/or get some near-unlimited fuel source, like fusion.
Might I advise against getting a Windows Phone?
A 50% off sale doesn't help the guy who just lost 75% of his wealth.
Only now, with RFC 1924, you don't even need to pick a random number. Just smash your face into the keyboard a couple times, and voila: 4)+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Yp! A perfectly usable address!
That's a really interesting design, thanks for posting it. However, from their paper (paywall) it seems like the RBW (to use the spectrum analyzer term) is dependent on how many of these filters you put in. If you want a fine resolution over a wide band, you're going to need hundreds of these things per decade, and thousands overall. Certainly possible, and I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them before long, but maybe not that much cheaper than conventional spec ans -- remember, a lot of that $10k price tag is for software, support, testing, calibration, etc. And they won't be replacing conventional spec ans, because it doesn't seem like this tech is scalable down to really fine bandwidths (~1 Hz RBW).
Also, I disagree on the cochlea being incorporated into every mobile RF device. There's no reason for most devices to care what's going on outside of their operating band, so why waste space and power on this? It certainly isn't sensitive enough to replace the receiver, especially not while taking up less space.
That's completely impossible. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to make transceivers capable of using the entire spectrum? Do you know how long it would take for your wireless mouse to bind if it had to sweep through the entire spectrum to find the host? Want to change the radio station in your car? Better be prepared to wait a few minutes while it sweeps back and forth across the spectrum trying to find the channel (which itself is hopping around).
And even if it were possible, it would be stupid, because certain frequencies are better for certain things.
Millions of people took out these loans because the bank officials told them that it was okay, that that was just how things worked, that they had nothing to worry about, etc. Like it or not, people have a tendency to trust authority figures. If a psychiatrist uses their position of authority to convince a patient to have sex with them, it's considered a sex crime (not to mention a major breach of ethics). If a police officer convinces a person to commit a crime, it's entrapment. But when a bank official convinces someone that it's okay to lie about their income to get a loan, knowing full well that that person will default and that the bank will make a fortune off it, suddenly the person losing their home is the crook and the bank is harmless?
While you're at it, read this: In Prison for Taking a Liar Loan.
Summary, since no one RTFA's:
Guy takes out "liar" loan from bank, after much encouragement from Countrywide (now BoA)
Guy defaults on loan, like so many others, losing his home. Bankers make millions.
Guy runs a marathon for charity across the Sahara Desert
Federal agent sees marathon coverage, thinks "How can some working stiff afford to do that? He should be keeping his head down like the rest of the slaves!"
Feds send hot undercover agent to flirt with the guy, extract a confession
Guy sent to jail, ordered to pay a quarter million dollars restitution to Bank of America
In short, while you're robbing the banks from within, not only do you have no worries about being prosecuted -- the people you're robbing can be prosecuted and forced to pay you even more!
You're describing the financial sector as it existed in the 70s. Back then, it really was about helping businesses grow and finding the next big idea. These days, the pigs on top have discovered that they can get WAY more money by playing around with "creative" instruments. Like bundle a bunch of bad loans, sell them claiming their good loans, and then bet money that they'll fail. Or buy a healthy company, make them layoff of a bunch of their workers so that their stock price jumps, and then sell. Shit like that doesn't create wealth; it just steals it.