i have to wonder that the o.p. doesn't want to run linux because it *might* not run on tes laptop and isn't willing to risk it -- what risk? it's free. boot a livecd and find out -- but they are willing to toss their laptop entirely and buy a macbook. well watchout, cos i can guarantee that two of the mouse buttons on your osx macbook will not work. i also think kde is easier to use than osx, if you're coming from xp.
Clearly it's a rhetorical use of "criminal" since it is in fact legal. But lots of legal activity is criminal in the sense that it is the commission of a "crime", by some definition of "crime". Crimes against humanity were certainly committed long before the notion of such a principle of law was ever invented, for example. Calling them "crimes" before that principle was firmly established in practice was a rhetorical act, but that does not make it a mistake. Holding slaves is criminal, even in places where slavery is allowed by law, for example.
> Profit maxmization within the ethical bounds of the community is what business SHOULD do.
Indeed for a public corporation, there is a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do just that. This is a major problem with the structure of the public corporation. The result is that criminal acts are obligatory. The common legal fiction is that corporations are persons. That being the case, they are sociopathic monomaniacs, by design.
> there should be a way for the Gov't to "buy out" a drug for the public good in times of a health care crisis.
There is. But it doesn't get used, because the public corporations concentrate funds so effectively, that they buy the government of their choice. This is both good and bad. It is good in that they often choose well. Public corporations generally benefit from domestic tranquility and prosperity. It is bad in that some choose very badly. The military supply chain, for example, creates a strong corporate constituency for warmongering. Drug companies, as they are currently constituted, create a strong constituency against the interests of public health.
The major gap in such a program is the lack of support for research which produces profound public benefits which are unforeseen. The essence of invention being novelty, the most fundamental innovations could never get awarded, if all of the awards were, in essence, contract research RFPs.
It is not expropriation for the fruits of public investment to be returned to the investors (the public). It is a private expropriation of public property for an individual who was paid from public funds to to use barratry to deter competitors from exploiting the public knowledge gained from that work.
The effect of advertisments for drugs is overwhelmingly to create pressure on physicians from their clients to prescribe lifestyle drugs. It is absurd to image physicians as hostile to improvements in treatment options, and thus requiring a benevolent nanny in the form of a pharmaceutical corporation to guide them into making good choices.
I heartily agree with your comment, but would add that not all risks are equal. A rational model should assign some very large (but not infinite) premium to the risk of total business failure -- a value well in excess of the actual monetary cost of such a loss.
> The other thing to consider is that, if a virus starts spreading though > word documents in email attachments, you're going to start seeing a lot > of SPAM with word documents attached. Consider being more restrictive > to SPAM with regard to attachments.
If spam were the problem, everyone would laugh about it and move on, leaving IT to mop up. The real problem is that one infected system can open your network and your private data to the attacker. When the business fails, completely and permanently, either because you can't get customers anymore, or because your practices violate the requirements of law, or because you violated the contracts on the deals you need to survive, or because your competitor just ate your income stream, that won't look good on your resume.
The attacks which a competent professional IT staff must defend against are very different from those to which a random cable user on the Internet would be subject.
It doesn't matter whether the person sending you a document is a stranger, a friend, or your mother. If their computer has somehow become infected with a worm that insinuates itself into the.doc files which they send, and you open it without an effective scan (meaning after the antivirus vendors have analyzed the worm and your system has been updated from the vendor), then your system has been compromised. That means that anything you can see or do, the attacker can see and do.
This shows a false sense of security, which is the most dangerous condition. All it takes is one person who has an infected laptop to email to another person a document which they created themselves, and your internal network is open to the attacker.
Evidently you didn't read the review. Intel has serious problems for large scale computing. It does not scale up. It's fine as a thread engine for processing small transactions, but for the kind of problems that people like Google and NCAR are doing -- and it is people like that who drive some very large CPU buys -- the external MMU bites their ass every time. Is the current generation of Opterons a gamer buy? No. AMD probably won't dominate the gamer market until a high-end GPU is integrated on die at 45 nm. Meanwhile, it will eat up Intels server share as the roadmap materializes for quad core. People who buy systems with upgradability in mind are the only real market right now.
You've accepted a fallacy of false dichotomy. While the 90s posed a dilemma of RISC vs. CISC, modern hardware architectures are more akin to VLIW. The ISA may be a stack machine, much to the dismay of compiler writers everywhere, but that is flattened into a superscalar VLIW microcode stream.
Minnesota should do fairly well, climatologically. There may be, shall we say, *demographic* issues that arise however. Think of New Orleans out-migration. Think of the dust bowl Okies. Oh, and then there's the wars. And the phony terrorism used to dupe the population into supporting the wars. And then there's the fuel supply issue, which results in a food supply issue. But you'll spend less time shovelling your driveway, so it kind of evens out, doncha know.
Get real. We're talking about a pathetic Rupert Murdock propaganda rag. Of course it's full of brainwashing tripe. There are facts in there too, however, if you can find them. It's like "Where's Waldo".
> if "economic growth" in modern terms wasn't just shorthand for "turning nonrenewable natural resources into trash at a faster rate than ever before."
This condition seems obsolete: There won't be any more non-renewable natural resources to trash. In the unfolding Malthusian catastrophe, we're around the 50% consumed level for calories, which means the bulk of the population should die off within the generation, leaving essentially nothing, unless we rapidly refocus resources on creating a sustainable model for development. Yes, this has been called too early several times, and the result is exactly analogous to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Oh well. Wolf's here. Too bad.
I don't think anyone doubts the existence of terrorists. Reasonable people, without an ideological horse in the race, have generally concluded that the terrorists are, at a command and organizational level, financed by and controlled by the intelligence communities of the major players in the black ops world, such as the U.S., Russia, and Israel. The program advanced by the fabrication of ludicrous straw terror groups such as the supposed liquid bombers is obvious.
Its also good for Google, because they can bid on the options themselves, which means they reduce the size of the float, and do so by booking treasury shares at par (usually 0.01$ or 1.00$) instead of booking them at market prices. It's also good for Google shareholders if Google is reducing the size of the float. Frankly, I think it's not brilliant but a good, sound idea, a win-win-win idea. (Assuming the employees make good decisions.)
Please explain to me how executives holding shares can increase the value of their own shares while acting against the interests of other shareholders.
> It's human nature to do as little as possible to get by.
Quite the contrary. It's human nature to try to achieve as much as possible in life. Only state schooling or genetic defect can create an entitlement mentality.
You seem to be confusing socialism with some imaginary scheme in which everyone gets equal rewards. Socialism is typically taken to mean government ownership of the means of production. This is widely practiced, around the world, and it does result in poor production practices, because government is typically more tolerant of corruption than is enterprise, where performance efficiency is driven by competition. But a less corrupt government will manage state enterprises more efficiently than a more corrupt one, and a state enterprise which is required to compete equally with private enterprise is not going to be entirely tolerant of efficiency losses due to corruption.
In some ways the system of public companies is a perfect model of communism, which is collective ownership of the means of production. If every corporation were required to be publically traded as a condition of incorporation, and every corporation were required to issue proportional shares to each new citizen, the result would be a communist system which exploited market efficiencies and competition to improve the wealth of all of the members of society. They could of course dispose of their wealth foolishly or wisely, and as a result raise or lower their personal wealth, but the means of production would be entirely collective, and therefore communist. Unless this were accompanied by draconian inheritance tax, "old money" wealth would still create destabilizing inequities, however.
In the Torah, it was dictated that wealth would be redistributed every 50 years. Remarkably prescient, that.
You must be reading version 1.1 of the advisory, which editted out the material quoted in the article. See the revision history at the bottom of the advisory page.
This is, of course, a wonderful example of how one can expect Microsoft to serve it's own interests, against the interests of it's users.
> Tax breaks for the rich?! DUH only the rich can get 'em cause the botom 50% is getting the money.
Actually, most of the tax money being spent is going into the pockets of the 2% at the top, via their ownership of businesses that supply the government, the banks that lend to the government, etc. Taxation is a scheme for redistribution of wealth. Wealth advances political power, and political power advances wealth. Of course the redistribution scheme favors the wealthy. It would be very bizarre if it did not.
Slashdot Mirror
i have to wonder that the o.p. doesn't want to run linux because it *might* not run on tes laptop and isn't willing to risk it -- what risk? it's free. boot a livecd and find out -- but they are willing to toss their laptop entirely and buy a macbook. well watchout, cos i can guarantee that two of the mouse buttons on your osx macbook will not work. i also think kde is easier to use than osx, if you're coming from xp.
You could operate your whole network on the EC2 cloud at lower cost. It's not viable if you are dealing with SCI, however.
However personally warm and generous he was, he was a member of the Warren Commission, and therefore a traitor.
> I own shares of a Drug company
Me too.
> so how does that make me a criminal?
Clearly it's a rhetorical use of "criminal" since it is in fact legal. But lots of legal activity is criminal in
the sense that it is the commission of a "crime", by some definition of "crime". Crimes against humanity
were certainly committed long before the notion of such a principle of law was ever invented, for example.
Calling them "crimes" before that principle was firmly established in practice was a rhetorical act, but
that does not make it a mistake. Holding slaves is criminal, even in places where slavery is allowed by law,
for example.
> Profit maxmization within the ethical bounds of the community is what business SHOULD do.
Indeed for a public corporation, there is a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do just that.
This is a major problem with the structure of the public corporation. The result is that criminal acts
are obligatory. The common legal fiction is that corporations are persons. That being the case, they
are sociopathic monomaniacs, by design.
> there should be a way for the Gov't to "buy out" a drug for the public good in times of a health care crisis.
There is. But it doesn't get used, because the public corporations concentrate funds so effectively, that they
buy the government of their choice. This is both good and bad. It is good in that they often choose well.
Public corporations generally benefit from domestic tranquility and prosperity. It is bad in that some choose
very badly. The military supply chain, for example, creates a strong corporate constituency for warmongering.
Drug companies, as they are currently constituted, create a strong constituency against the interests of
public health.
The major gap in such a program is the lack of support for research which produces profound public benefits which are unforeseen. The essence of invention being novelty, the most fundamental innovations could never get awarded, if all of the awards were, in essence, contract research RFPs.
It is not expropriation for the fruits of public investment to be returned to the investors (the public).
It is a private expropriation of public property for an individual who was paid from public funds to
to use barratry to deter competitors from exploiting the public knowledge gained from that work.
The effect of advertisments for drugs is overwhelmingly to create pressure on physicians from their
clients to prescribe lifestyle drugs. It is absurd to image physicians as hostile to improvements
in treatment options, and thus requiring a benevolent nanny in the form of a pharmaceutical
corporation to guide them into making good choices.
I heartily agree with your comment, but would add that not all risks are equal.
A rational model should assign some very large (but not infinite) premium to
the risk of total business failure -- a value well in excess of the actual monetary
cost of such a loss.
That's the rationale behind the death penalty.
It is the microcode architecture which is VLIW. In no wise is the x86_64 ISA a VLIW ISA. But the chips damn well are.
> The other thing to consider is that, if a virus starts spreading though
> word documents in email attachments, you're going to start seeing a lot
> of SPAM with word documents attached. Consider being more restrictive
> to SPAM with regard to attachments.
If spam were the problem, everyone would laugh about it and move on,
leaving IT to mop up. The real problem is that one infected system can
open your network and your private data to the attacker. When the business
fails, completely and permanently, either because you can't get customers
anymore, or because your practices violate the requirements of law, or
because you violated the contracts on the deals you need to survive, or
because your competitor just ate your income stream, that won't look good
on your resume.
The attacks which a competent professional IT staff must defend against
are very different from those to which a random cable user on the Internet
would be subject.
It doesn't matter whether the person sending you a document is a stranger, a friend, or your mother. If their computer has somehow become infected with a worm that insinuates itself into the .doc files which they send, and you open it without an effective scan (meaning after the antivirus vendors have analyzed the worm and your system has been updated from the vendor), then your system has been compromised. That means that anything you can see or do, the attacker can see and do.
This shows a false sense of security, which is the most dangerous condition. All it takes is one person who has an infected laptop to email to another person a document which they created themselves, and your internal network is open to the attacker.
Evidently you didn't read the review. Intel has serious problems for large scale computing. It does not scale up. It's fine as a thread engine for processing small transactions, but for the kind of problems that people like Google and NCAR are doing -- and it is people like that who drive some very large CPU buys -- the external MMU bites their ass every time. Is the current generation of Opterons a gamer buy? No. AMD probably won't dominate the gamer market until a high-end GPU is integrated on die at 45 nm. Meanwhile, it will eat up Intels server share as the roadmap materializes for quad core. People who buy systems with upgradability in mind are the only real market right now.
You've accepted a fallacy of false dichotomy. While the 90s posed a dilemma of RISC vs. CISC, modern hardware architectures are more akin to VLIW. The ISA may be a stack machine, much to the dismay of compiler writers everywhere, but that is flattened into a superscalar VLIW microcode stream.
Minnesota should do fairly well, climatologically. There may be, shall we say, *demographic* issues that arise however. Think of New Orleans out-migration. Think of the dust bowl Okies. Oh, and then there's the wars. And the phony terrorism used to dupe the population into supporting the wars. And then there's the fuel supply issue, which results in a food supply issue. But you'll spend less time shovelling your driveway, so it kind of evens out, doncha know.
Get real. We're talking about a pathetic Rupert Murdock propaganda rag. Of course it's full of brainwashing tripe. There are facts in there too, however, if you can find them. It's like "Where's Waldo".
> if "economic growth" in modern terms wasn't just shorthand for "turning nonrenewable natural resources into trash at a faster rate than ever before."
This condition seems obsolete: There won't be any more non-renewable natural resources to trash. In the unfolding Malthusian catastrophe, we're around the 50% consumed level for calories, which means the bulk of the population should die off within the generation, leaving essentially nothing, unless we rapidly refocus resources on creating a sustainable model for development. Yes, this has been called too early several times, and the result is exactly analogous to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Oh well. Wolf's here. Too bad.
I don't think anyone doubts the existence of terrorists. Reasonable people, without an ideological horse in the race, have generally concluded that the terrorists are, at a command and organizational level, financed by and controlled by the intelligence communities of the major players in the black ops world, such as the U.S., Russia, and Israel. The program advanced by the fabrication of ludicrous straw terror groups such as the supposed liquid bombers is obvious.
Where is the "-1 jerk" button?
Its also good for Google, because they can bid on the options themselves, which means they reduce the size of the float, and do so by booking treasury shares at par (usually 0.01$ or 1.00$) instead of booking them at market prices. It's also good for Google shareholders if Google is reducing the size of the float. Frankly, I think it's not brilliant but a good, sound idea, a win-win-win idea. (Assuming the employees make good decisions.)
Please explain to me how executives holding shares can increase the value of their own shares while acting against the interests of other shareholders.
> It's human nature to do as little as possible to get by.
Quite the contrary. It's human nature to try to achieve as much as possible in life.
Only state schooling or genetic defect can create an entitlement mentality.
You seem to be confusing socialism with some imaginary scheme in which
everyone gets equal rewards. Socialism is typically taken to mean government
ownership of the means of production. This is widely practiced, around
the world, and it does result in poor production practices, because government
is typically more tolerant of corruption than is enterprise, where performance
efficiency is driven by competition. But a less corrupt government will manage
state enterprises more efficiently than a more corrupt one, and a state
enterprise which is required to compete equally with private enterprise is not
going to be entirely tolerant of efficiency losses due to corruption.
In some ways the system of public companies is a perfect model of communism,
which is collective ownership of the means of production. If every corporation
were required to be publically traded as a condition of incorporation, and every
corporation were required to issue proportional shares to each new citizen, the
result would be a communist system which exploited market efficiencies and
competition to improve the wealth of all of the members of society. They could
of course dispose of their wealth foolishly or wisely, and as a result raise or
lower their personal wealth, but the means of production would be entirely
collective, and therefore communist. Unless this were accompanied by draconian
inheritance tax, "old money" wealth would still create destabilizing inequities, however.
In the Torah, it was dictated that wealth would be redistributed every 50 years.
Remarkably prescient, that.
> A poll tax or head tax is in some ways the most fair
I agree. The fairest thing is tacks in the head of the 2% that have enslaved the world.
Or bullets even. Or axes. Whatever it takes.
You must be reading version 1.1 of the advisory, which editted out the material quoted in the article. See the revision history at the bottom of the advisory page.
This is, of course, a wonderful example of how one can expect Microsoft to serve it's own interests, against the interests of it's users.
> Tax breaks for the rich?! DUH only the rich can get 'em cause the botom 50% is getting the money.
Actually, most of the tax money being spent is going into the pockets of the 2% at the top,
via their ownership of businesses that supply the government, the banks that lend to the
government, etc. Taxation is a scheme for redistribution of wealth. Wealth advances political
power, and political power advances wealth. Of course the redistribution scheme favors the
wealthy. It would be very bizarre if it did not.