Re:Whatever gets AOL off the net is fine with me.
on
AOL Kills Usenet Access
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
AOL continues to survive because they've had one basic goal when it comes to their client... ease of use out of the box. They want people to be able to take the CD, put it in, install the software, then be able to dial in after answering a couple of questions related to your current area code and location.
Another thing they have is a national presence. They're portable... meaning you can use it at home or when you travel. One friend of mine uses it for exactly that reason. He lives in one area, travels to another for extended periods of time, and likes the ability to just find a local dial-up number to get to his email. That's all part of his business.
Is this the best? No. Does it provide what he wants? Yes.
Overall, I'm not sure how to feel about this. Part of me is quite elated, because I remember early on when they first granted Usenet access, how flooded with nonsense some of the groups were. There's another part of me that is somewhat disappointed, because I do know a few people who use AOL for their internet access and post regularly and intelligently to some newsgroups. Those are the people I will kindasorta grieve for, but then again, they're generally internet-savvy enough to find other ways to post there.
That aside, this is just the EU's way of saying that they don't want to be utterly beholden to a US-based corporation for everything. In terms of the EU ruling, it's fines and penalties.
With the US ruling, Microsoft is to donate computers, equipment, etc, to schools. Sounds rather fishy, huh? They end up geting exactly what they want... a way into the schools... a venue predominantly occupied by Apple.
That's because, once upon a time, when it came to business computing, IBM was top dog. In the 1970's, when you needed a system, you went to IBM... not because they were the best, but because they provided a service contract. If your machine died, one phone call had at least one, if not several, IBM folks at your site, digging through your hardware, trying to diagnose the problem. Or it had several IBM folk sitting back at their offices, searching the OS or other application code for the problem, based on the diagnostic information you sent them. A friend of mine worked for IBM during the 1960's and 1970's, then was a consultant on IBM systems after that for many years. He's told me this several times: What got IBM top marks was their service reputation. In the corporate environment, stability and uptime/system availability are two of the biggest issues.
You are correct, however, that they made several bad business decisions... like considering the PC a "passing fad."
Re:It's not the business model...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
I would've been able to do that, except for the following two points:
I was much younger and more inexperienced
I was brought on board after all decisions, purchases, and basic installations were completed, so I had absolutely no input into the process
If there would've been a better way, I wish I would've been able to find it then... but they made some really bad decisions and were determined to make them work because that's what their user community wanted in terms of puzzle pieces, not what was technologically possible at that time.
Nowadays, I just present people with the alternatives, make suggestions, give demos, etc... and frequently have caught people with something new based on a lot of, "Wow, I never thought of that," responses. I like to get things done and get them done right... and be there if something goes wrong so that when my higher-ups get called, they can be told, "He's fixed it already," "He's working on it and will be done soon," or even "He's not responsible, but he helped us get on the right path to fix it."
Actually, they are forced to make them available per the GPL, which means, "Yes, Virginia, they are forced to put them out to the public." So if you want to see exactly what was compiled to build the kernel you're running, they have to make it available to you, including their modifications. It is your choice, however, if you want to install or even download the source code. The key is, it must be available for you to do just that.
RedHat 7.0 (2.2 kernel), for example, had the USB code backported into it at the time. If you looked at the kernel SRPM package, you would've found all of the USB code in there.
RedHat is not required to release any software they develop from scratch, unless they put that under the GPL too.
Your mix of apples and oranges isn't quite coming up with marmalade here.
I guess you've never looked into the SRPMS that RedHat puts out there. That's the source code they used to build the binary packages you're installing. They're released, or at least made available, per the terms of the GPL.
Let me guess... Comes complete with busy loops to slow things down and make Windows look better, extra bugs, and more holes.
But seriously... unless Microsoft could find a way to invalidate the GPL, there is no way they'd do that because then they'd have to share their code changes with everyone else. Once they did that, most of the world would know just how bad their internal coding practices are.
Re:It's not the business model...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Buying decisions are made by suits, though. Most CIO's are former CFO's working towards becoming COO's. They don't give two shits about what "hackers" like.
Unfortunately, they tend to do this on the golf course with their other CEO, CIO, CFO, and CTO buddies, instead of asking the people who have to actually support the applications and systems. They want all the stuff that looks flashy, etc. The techies, unfortunately, then have to figure out ways to make the stuff work.
Many years ago, I went to a company where they wanted to have several applications talk to each other. Two of them ran on Solaris, two of them ran on Windows. One used Oracle as the back-end, another used DBASE. How did they come up with the combination of COTS stuff? They asked the users to pick which software package they wanted for which particular function. The problem is, nobody ever really evaluated what could be done with each of them. It turned out that one of the Windows apps couldn't be made to talk with anything else because of the memory control module. The database stuff it used wanted to do its own memory allocation, and it interfered with the TCP/IP sockets library's ability to do its necessary memory allocation. I didn't last long there, because I basically made my opinions known and they didn't want to hear that they made some really bad decisions.
When going for my RHCE, the instructor was telling us that RedHat basically came into existence because for Linux to be a viable business solution, companies wanted to be able to point fingers at someone to say, "You... FIX THIS!" They didn't want to file bug reports and wait for someone to get around to it. They wanted someone to be there at their beck-and-call, providing the necessary support. This kind of thinking is what actually helped Linux become a viable business solution.
A whois sent to any of the domain registrars will tell you
who the appropriate DNS host is, or at least who should have the authority.
If they go through all the trouble of not only compromising the DNS servers themselves, but creating something that will handle commands like whois -h whois.networksolutions.com ebay.com either they've got an extremely elaborate setup to begin with, or their site will end up coming down in short order because of the sheer volume of requests coming in for all kinds of information. Test out whether they've compromised everything by entering some obscure domains that you know about and see if they're reporting the correct information.
Yes, you can sort of spoof all that by having the request for an "unknown" domain pass through to the real server, then pass that data back to the requestor, but unless you end up hijacking and rerouting all of the major domain registrars' web server resolutions...
Yes, you invest a lot. Yes, your potential for returns goes way up. So does the chance that someone out there will notice what's going on. Like most thieves, they want to be "gone in 30 seconds or less." Anything that ends up adding additional "time" to commit the actual crime increases the chance that they'll be discovered.
Unfortunately, unless you run your own DNS server, there isn't much you can do about DNS server attacks.
Disabling ActiveX and VBScript guards against your hosts file being compromised, because most people just set their Windows user accounts to be an administrator of the box. Unix/Linux users don't have to worry about this, unless they're running the web browser as root, in which case they deserve what happens to them.
Of course, if you're mildly net-savvy, you can always use "dig" or "nslookup" and check about four or five well-known servers before you even go to the financial web site. If all of them return the same thing, you're probably safe. If any of them return something different, wait 12 hours and see what happens.
Call your financial institution before even attempting to use the web. They generally have toll-free numbers, and major ones tend to have 24 hour customer service. Ask them if there really is a problem with your account, and if there is, ask them how to remedy it.
If you run IE, shut it down and use Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Opera, or some other browser. If you don't want to go through the downloading, go into your internet preferences and disable ALL forms of ActiveX and VBScript.
If it's an email claiming to be your bank or other financial institution and they ask you to click on a link contained therein, don't do it. Go to your web browser and type in the link manually.
If you use Firefox, try installing something like
SpoofStick
Sometimes, the simplest things you do can make all the difference
whether your account gets compromised or not.
Do you have your contract handy? What provisions do you have in it for failure to deliver on-time? You should have some kind of deadlines and other associated non-delivery clauses in there, if you drew it up properly.
If all you have is a verbal contract, you could very easily be up the creek, unless you've got non-interested collaborating witnesses who will sign affadavits, attest to it in court, etc.
This is a time to bring in your lawyers, let them review the contract, assuming you have one, and then work from there.
In the meantime, stop payment on any checks and look to hire one or two developers, minimum, who can do this stuff in-house for you. That way, when it doesn't work, you can walk down the hall, put a hand on the developer's shoulder and say, "Get it done or else."
You've gained access to the contents, therefore the seal is "broken," without being physically altered.
You would be incapable of returning the software to the vendor for a refund, given the scenario you described, unless the disk itself were damaged.
Yes, you could always copy the contents, then scratch or otherwise damage the disk such that it would not work, but then all you'd get from the vendor is a replacement official copy, not a refund.
You cannot enforce something on someone who hasn't had a chance to read it before opening it, so the shrinkwrap EULAs are unenforcable. If, however, the CDs containing the software are in a sealed envelope which says, "By breaking this seal, you agree to the terms of the EULA on the outside of this envelope," and the EULA actually is outside of that sealed envelope, it's enforcable. You had a chance to read it before you broke the seal.
Placing the EULA inside that sealed envelope or some other sealed package that requires you to force agreement with it in order to get to it in the first place is best described as "entrapment."
Ashcroft was alluding to the monies lost from sales, rentals, etc. When you have copyright infringement, the infringer takes profits away from the copyright holder.
I agree with you and the Supreme Court. Copyright infringement itself is not stealing.
However, the laws also allow for retribution, which generally means you turn over any profits to the copyright holder, and then you can end up paying some hefty fines, depending on how much damage you cause.
And we all used to think getting an F in English class for plagiarizing (a form of copyright infringement) on a term paper was harsh...
If you can't lose, you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit. If you have a reasonably wise and intelligent judge hearing the case, he'll look at it, agree, and throw it out. The judge would then warn the lawyer about bringing up frivolous lawsuits, potentially fining him for doing so.
Perhaps he should look for a way to counter-sue on those grounds. He followed the law, made a simple request based on the TOS of the ISP, and he's being harassed with a frivolous lawsuit intended to seek damages for something he is not liable for.
Part of the process of verification would have to involve detailing the process you used to generate the image. It would require listing your hardware configuration, operating system and version, plus any software used and its versions. Being able to recreate the results within the acceptable margin of error is part of science.
Internally, they would be able to verify the accuracy of some of the major programs by version and be able to state whether or not the configured system generated something that is credible or not.
If you don't care about having your name associated with the image, you can do whatever you want. If you want official recognition, you have to go through entering the data for verification purposes.
There's also nothing against the scientists taking these quickly generated pictures and checking them over for accuracy.
NASA/ESA could've also just as easily said:
We are making the raw images publicly available. We ask that if you use them to generate any type of image that you submit them to us first at
(insert email address or web upload site here). We greatly appreciate the efforts put forth by anyone who utilizes the raw data, and will be given full credit for his or her effort.
By doing this, the scientists could at least lend some credibility to the speed at which the pictuers are generated, and get a little help from an anxious public. With the computing power available out there, they could end up with more images than they know what to do with, while still processing the data internally to generate the "official" images.
This is the kind of stuff that could also help those going for (more likely) graduate degrees in Astronomy.
Trying to be as generous as possible, let's look at it this way:
Interstate Highways
Part of the Department of Defense; designed to be high-speed road transportation for moving troops and supplies
US Highways
Part of the Post Office; these are the former postal roads
Now, let's go based on the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 - Powers enumerated to the US Congress. Congress has the power to provide for a national defense, therefore the interstate highways fall under that. Congress establishes a postal system, therefore US highways fall under that. Protection against invasion is defense.
As for the rest of the stuff, well, let's look at Amendment X to the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Based solely on that, there are many federal programs that are unconstitutional. There is no provision for the federal government to provide poverty relief, flood insurance, medial insurance, etc. Most roads are built by states and municipalities, anyway. It only says in clause 1 that it can "for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Taking from Peter to pay Paul does not provide for the general welfare of the US. It provides for the specific welfare of Paul and hurts the welfare of Peter. OK, you all think I'm starting to sound like a mean SOB with a big burr up his backside. In reality, if anyone wants these things as government programs, the place to have them enacted is at the state level. Equitable? It entirely depends on the state in which you live. I have far less of a problem paying the higher tax bill to the state than I do the federal government, becuase at least when it's to the state, the money stays closer to home and has more of a direct effect on me.
Do the words "provide" and "promote" mean the same thing? According to the dictionary, no. According to the Supreme Court decisions over the last several decades, yes.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
I guess you passed over the part that went like this:
What's more, there is a strong case to be made that the agency is erring on the side of being overly pessimistic. If its more optimistic projection turns out to be correct, then there will be no need for any benefit cuts or payroll-tax increases over the full 75 years.
No, I didn't pass over that part. I took a logical stance on it: by using the more pessimistic numbers, the survival chance of Social Security goes up. If you plan for the worst and it happens, you look like a genius. If you sit back on your haunches expecting the optimistic numbers to be totally true and they turn out to be wrong, many more people will be suffering in the long run.
Nobody says we have to use the most pessimistic numbers, but with two primary scenarios looming (solvency vs insolvency), it makes far more sense to plan for the bad one, or at least formulate a plan that will cover 70% of the sub-scenarios, should the insolvency scenario be the true outcome. How will doing something like that hurt the system in the long run?
In terms of the stock market and 401K's, well, the same could be said for the banks and the FDIC "guaranteeing" deposits up to $100,000.00. No investment is truly safe, not even government T-bills or precious metals (though these have the best potential for being as secure as can be). Investment implies risk. Assume the government remains solvent-ish, in power, etc, otherwise all bets are off. Stocks have high risk, but greater potential for huge returns. Traditional savings bank accounts have little to no risk and have extremely poor returns. I vaguely recall hearing that you can actually get a better return value on your dollar by just going to a bank and taking the same amount of money and locking it up into long-term certificates of deposit (CDs).
Since the government created a dependency, the government has to do something to either keep the feeder working or eliminate the dependency. Sitting around and doing nothing is not an option.
BTW, I hope you realize that what is listed in your paycheck as "Social Security Tax" is only 50% of what is actually paid. Your employer pays the other half.
I guess you passed over the part that went like this:
Currently, Social Security is running a hefty surplus; the payroll tax brings in more dollars than what goes out in benefits. By law, Social Security invests that surplus in Treasury securities, which it deposits into a reserve known as a trust fund, which now holds more than one and a half trillion dollars. But by 2018, as baby boomers retire en masse, the system will go into deficit. At that point, in order to pay benefits, it will begin to draw on the assets in the trust fund.
While the system may be working just fine now, there is a strong chance that in 15-ish years, the system will not be able to meet its legal obligation.
Why? It's a simple numbers game. More and more people draw on the system with approximately the same number of people contributing to it. Numbers can be adjusted for inflation all you want, but the percentages will change for one side while remaining relatively steady for the other. That's an imbalance that will eventually cause insolvency.
Social security was always meant to be a supplement to the pensions people would receive from companies for their long-term service. Times have changed. People don't necessarily stay with one company for 20+ years like they used to. In come 401K plans, which are somewhat portable. Instead of accruing pension amounts, your employer does the same thing for you by providing some form of matching funds directly into your 401K account. The money is yours up front, and by contributing smaller amounts now, your amount earned over time will be much higher.
Social security was never meant to be your sole source of income after retirement, despite what many current retirees and several baby boomers would have you believe.
Gen-X'ers had best plan on not having Social Security, if they want to survive retirement.
Actually, those of us who are just a little over 35 are too.
The problem is that more and more people are drawing on the system because people are living longer. At the time it was passed, very few people lived much past the age of about 60, let alone 65. It was designed as a "pay as you go" system, so your money is not really put aside for you somewhere so that it can earn interest. Your money is used to pay the benefits of those currently collecting. Your benefits (assuming the system is around that long) will be paid by those who are paying into the system when you retire.
I've even tried to look into taking my parents onto my health policy, but federal law won't allow it for the reverse. After years of being on my dad's policy while growing up, I am legally not allowed to take him onto mine now that both he and mom are retired. Wouldn't it be nice to have an option to do something like "no medicare withholding because one or both over-65 parents are classified as dependents"? Sure, the health insurance companies would balk and probably start up all kinds of FUD and lobbying against it. Why? They've become more concerned with making money than doing what they're supposed to do... cover your health care expenses.
I think I watched all of 2 or 3 episodes. I was not impressed at all.
It's about time the whole Star Trek franchise is just left alone for a while. Not only have they over-harvested this field, they've got so many inconsistencies with the original series done by Roddenberry. Simple, glaring example: Zephram Cochrane. Where's he from? Alpha Centauri (TOS) or Earth (STTNG Movie). Perhaps, given about a decade, the whole thing can be revived after new ideas, concepts, etc, are all gathered up and worked on. Only this time, take the series another 20-50 years into the future from TNG.
Berman has only taken the whole franchise down the road to ruin.
RIP, Star Trek. You were fun. Now you're just old and tired.
Slashdot Mirror
To dream... the impossible dream...
Another thing they have is a national presence. They're portable... meaning you can use it at home or when you travel. One friend of mine uses it for exactly that reason. He lives in one area, travels to another for extended periods of time, and likes the ability to just find a local dial-up number to get to his email. That's all part of his business.
Is this the best? No. Does it provide what he wants? Yes.
Overall, I'm not sure how to feel about this. Part of me is quite elated, because I remember early on when they first granted Usenet access, how flooded with nonsense some of the groups were. There's another part of me that is somewhat disappointed, because I do know a few people who use AOL for their internet access and post regularly and intelligently to some newsgroups. Those are the people I will kindasorta grieve for, but then again, they're generally internet-savvy enough to find other ways to post there.
That aside, this is just the EU's way of saying that they don't want to be utterly beholden to a US-based corporation for everything. In terms of the EU ruling, it's fines and penalties.
With the US ruling, Microsoft is to donate computers, equipment, etc, to schools. Sounds rather fishy, huh? They end up geting exactly what they want... a way into the schools... a venue predominantly occupied by Apple.
You are correct, however, that they made several bad business decisions... like considering the PC a "passing fad."
- I was much younger and more inexperienced
- I was brought on board after all decisions, purchases, and basic installations were completed, so I had absolutely no input into the process
If there would've been a better way, I wish I would've been able to find it then... but they made some really bad decisions and were determined to make them work because that's what their user community wanted in terms of puzzle pieces, not what was technologically possible at that time.Nowadays, I just present people with the alternatives, make suggestions, give demos, etc... and frequently have caught people with something new based on a lot of, "Wow, I never thought of that," responses. I like to get things done and get them done right... and be there if something goes wrong so that when my higher-ups get called, they can be told, "He's fixed it already," "He's working on it and will be done soon," or even "He's not responsible, but he helped us get on the right path to fix it."
RedHat 7.0 (2.2 kernel), for example, had the USB code backported into it at the time. If you looked at the kernel SRPM package, you would've found all of the USB code in there.
RedHat is not required to release any software they develop from scratch, unless they put that under the GPL too.
Your mix of apples and oranges isn't quite coming up with marmalade here.
But seriously... unless Microsoft could find a way to invalidate the GPL, there is no way they'd do that because then they'd have to share their code changes with everyone else. Once they did that, most of the world would know just how bad their internal coding practices are.
Unfortunately, they tend to do this on the golf course with their other CEO, CIO, CFO, and CTO buddies, instead of asking the people who have to actually support the applications and systems. They want all the stuff that looks flashy, etc. The techies, unfortunately, then have to figure out ways to make the stuff work.
Many years ago, I went to a company where they wanted to have several applications talk to each other. Two of them ran on Solaris, two of them ran on Windows. One used Oracle as the back-end, another used DBASE. How did they come up with the combination of COTS stuff? They asked the users to pick which software package they wanted for which particular function. The problem is, nobody ever really evaluated what could be done with each of them. It turned out that one of the Windows apps couldn't be made to talk with anything else because of the memory control module. The database stuff it used wanted to do its own memory allocation, and it interfered with the TCP/IP sockets library's ability to do its necessary memory allocation. I didn't last long there, because I basically made my opinions known and they didn't want to hear that they made some really bad decisions.
When going for my RHCE, the instructor was telling us that RedHat basically came into existence because for Linux to be a viable business solution, companies wanted to be able to point fingers at someone to say, "You... FIX THIS!" They didn't want to file bug reports and wait for someone to get around to it. They wanted someone to be there at their beck-and-call, providing the necessary support. This kind of thinking is what actually helped Linux become a viable business solution.
A whois sent to any of the domain registrars will tell you who the appropriate DNS host is, or at least who should have the authority.
If they go through all the trouble of not only compromising the DNS servers themselves, but creating something that will handle commands like
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com ebay.com
either they've got an extremely elaborate setup to begin with, or their site will end up coming down in short order because of the sheer volume of requests coming in for all kinds of information. Test out whether they've compromised everything by entering some obscure domains that you know about and see if they're reporting the correct information.
Yes, you can sort of spoof all that by having the request for an "unknown" domain pass through to the real server, then pass that data back to the requestor, but unless you end up hijacking and rerouting all of the major domain registrars' web server resolutions...
Yes, you invest a lot. Yes, your potential for returns goes way up. So does the chance that someone out there will notice what's going on. Like most thieves, they want to be "gone in 30 seconds or less." Anything that ends up adding additional "time" to commit the actual crime increases the chance that they'll be discovered.
Disabling ActiveX and VBScript guards against your hosts file being compromised, because most people just set their Windows user accounts to be an administrator of the box. Unix/Linux users don't have to worry about this, unless they're running the web browser as root, in which case they deserve what happens to them.
Of course, if you're mildly net-savvy, you can always use "dig" or "nslookup" and check about four or five well-known servers before you even go to the financial web site. If all of them return the same thing, you're probably safe. If any of them return something different, wait 12 hours and see what happens.
Sometimes, the simplest things you do can make all the difference whether your account gets compromised or not.
Very true. The difference being that with a local supplier, you have a much easier time seeking some kind of remedy or compensation.
Best advice, choose carefully, start small, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.
And above all, make sure your deliverables and warranties are enumerated in your contract, that way nobody has any surprises.
If all you have is a verbal contract, you could very easily be up the creek, unless you've got non-interested collaborating witnesses who will sign affadavits, attest to it in court, etc.
This is a time to bring in your lawyers, let them review the contract, assuming you have one, and then work from there.
In the meantime, stop payment on any checks and look to hire one or two developers, minimum, who can do this stuff in-house for you. That way, when it doesn't work, you can walk down the hall, put a hand on the developer's shoulder and say, "Get it done or else."
Yes, you could always copy the contents, then scratch or otherwise damage the disk such that it would not work, but then all you'd get from the vendor is a replacement official copy, not a refund.
Placing the EULA inside that sealed envelope or some other sealed package that requires you to force agreement with it in order to get to it in the first place is best described as "entrapment."
I agree with you and the Supreme Court. Copyright infringement itself is not stealing.
However, the laws also allow for retribution, which generally means you turn over any profits to the copyright holder, and then you can end up paying some hefty fines, depending on how much damage you cause.
And we all used to think getting an F in English class for plagiarizing (a form of copyright infringement) on a term paper was harsh...
Perhaps he should look for a way to counter-sue on those grounds. He followed the law, made a simple request based on the TOS of the ISP, and he's being harassed with a frivolous lawsuit intended to seek damages for something he is not liable for.
Internally, they would be able to verify the accuracy of some of the major programs by version and be able to state whether or not the configured system generated something that is credible or not.
If you don't care about having your name associated with the image, you can do whatever you want. If you want official recognition, you have to go through entering the data for verification purposes.
NASA/ESA could've also just as easily said:
By doing this, the scientists could at least lend some credibility to the speed at which the pictuers are generated, and get a little help from an anxious public. With the computing power available out there, they could end up with more images than they know what to do with, while still processing the data internally to generate the "official" images.This is the kind of stuff that could also help those going for (more likely) graduate degrees in Astronomy.
As for the rest of the stuff, well, let's look at Amendment X to the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Based solely on that, there are many federal programs that are unconstitutional. There is no provision for the federal government to provide poverty relief, flood insurance, medial insurance, etc. Most roads are built by states and municipalities, anyway. It only says in clause 1 that it can "for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Taking from Peter to pay Paul does not provide for the general welfare of the US. It provides for the specific welfare of Paul and hurts the welfare of Peter. OK, you all think I'm starting to sound like a mean SOB with a big burr up his backside. In reality, if anyone wants these things as government programs, the place to have them enacted is at the state level. Equitable? It entirely depends on the state in which you live. I have far less of a problem paying the higher tax bill to the state than I do the federal government, becuase at least when it's to the state, the money stays closer to home and has more of a direct effect on me.
Do the words "provide" and "promote" mean the same thing? According to the dictionary, no. According to the Supreme Court decisions over the last several decades, yes.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
No, I didn't pass over that part. I took a logical stance on it: by using the more pessimistic numbers, the survival chance of Social Security goes up. If you plan for the worst and it happens, you look like a genius. If you sit back on your haunches expecting the optimistic numbers to be totally true and they turn out to be wrong, many more people will be suffering in the long run.
Nobody says we have to use the most pessimistic numbers, but with two primary scenarios looming (solvency vs insolvency), it makes far more sense to plan for the bad one, or at least formulate a plan that will cover 70% of the sub-scenarios, should the insolvency scenario be the true outcome. How will doing something like that hurt the system in the long run?
In terms of the stock market and 401K's, well, the same could be said for the banks and the FDIC "guaranteeing" deposits up to $100,000.00. No investment is truly safe, not even government T-bills or precious metals (though these have the best potential for being as secure as can be). Investment implies risk. Assume the government remains solvent-ish, in power, etc, otherwise all bets are off. Stocks have high risk, but greater potential for huge returns. Traditional savings bank accounts have little to no risk and have extremely poor returns. I vaguely recall hearing that you can actually get a better return value on your dollar by just going to a bank and taking the same amount of money and locking it up into long-term certificates of deposit (CDs).
Since the government created a dependency, the government has to do something to either keep the feeder working or eliminate the dependency. Sitting around and doing nothing is not an option.
BTW, I hope you realize that what is listed in your paycheck as "Social Security Tax" is only 50% of what is actually paid. Your employer pays the other half.
Currently, Social Security is running a hefty surplus; the payroll tax brings in more dollars than what goes out in benefits. By law, Social Security invests that surplus in Treasury securities, which it deposits into a reserve known as a trust fund, which now holds more than one and a half trillion dollars. But by 2018, as baby boomers retire en masse, the system will go into deficit. At that point, in order to pay benefits, it will begin to draw on the assets in the trust fund.
While the system may be working just fine now, there is a strong chance that in 15-ish years, the system will not be able to meet its legal obligation.
Why? It's a simple numbers game. More and more people draw on the system with approximately the same number of people contributing to it. Numbers can be adjusted for inflation all you want, but the percentages will change for one side while remaining relatively steady for the other. That's an imbalance that will eventually cause insolvency.
Social security was always meant to be a supplement to the pensions people would receive from companies for their long-term service. Times have changed. People don't necessarily stay with one company for 20+ years like they used to. In come 401K plans, which are somewhat portable. Instead of accruing pension amounts, your employer does the same thing for you by providing some form of matching funds directly into your 401K account. The money is yours up front, and by contributing smaller amounts now, your amount earned over time will be much higher.
Social security was never meant to be your sole source of income after retirement, despite what many current retirees and several baby boomers would have you believe.
Gen-X'ers had best plan on not having Social Security, if they want to survive retirement.
Actually, those of us who are just a little over 35 are too.
The problem is that more and more people are drawing on the system because people are living longer. At the time it was passed, very few people lived much past the age of about 60, let alone 65. It was designed as a "pay as you go" system, so your money is not really put aside for you somewhere so that it can earn interest. Your money is used to pay the benefits of those currently collecting. Your benefits (assuming the system is around that long) will be paid by those who are paying into the system when you retire.
I've even tried to look into taking my parents onto my health policy, but federal law won't allow it for the reverse. After years of being on my dad's policy while growing up, I am legally not allowed to take him onto mine now that both he and mom are retired. Wouldn't it be nice to have an option to do something like "no medicare withholding because one or both over-65 parents are classified as dependents"? Sure, the health insurance companies would balk and probably start up all kinds of FUD and lobbying against it. Why? They've become more concerned with making money than doing what they're supposed to do... cover your health care expenses.
I think I watched all of 2 or 3 episodes. I was not impressed at all.
:)
It's about time the whole Star Trek franchise is just left alone for a while. Not only have they over-harvested this field, they've got so many inconsistencies with the original series done by Roddenberry. Simple, glaring example: Zephram Cochrane. Where's he from? Alpha Centauri (TOS) or Earth (STTNG Movie). Perhaps, given about a decade, the whole thing can be revived after new ideas, concepts, etc, are all gathered up and worked on. Only this time, take the series another 20-50 years into the future from TNG.
Berman has only taken the whole franchise down the road to ruin.
RIP, Star Trek. You were fun. Now you're just old and tired.
Time to wait for the new Doctor Who.