I think the 'will the cloud guarantee 100% uptime for your apps' thing is a bit of a red herring. I can't guarantee 100% even if it's inhouse. Though, obviously, I know the failure modes a bit more.
I think there's a huge subset of IT departments out there that are not as technically skilled as {Amazon,Google,Azure,etc.}. For them, they won't worry about this part as much.
Granted, there are a lot of other things to worry about once your data hits "the cloud" but for uptime only, I'd trust a Google engineer more than I'd trust most people I've worked with.
At one point at school I was using Charlotte a text mode webbrowser on a mainframe. I also maintained a price list on our webserver, and I had to test on Charlotte to make sure it was readable there.
Surprisingly it seems to still exist and updated shockingly recently.
Due to trajectory anomaly the spacecraft was separated and the parachutes had to be deployed during great speed in order to save it. The parachutes were not able to deploy correctly due to the speed but even with a "knot" of parachutes we had a low enough impact on water to recover Tycho Brahe as one piece.
No mention of how badly beat up the dummy was. it did not give me confidence
Three strikes was bad enough, do we have to stretch a bad analogy so far as to six? How about Pi strikes, or square root of two strikes; the phrase is just as contrived.
There is a bug in the protocol for WPS - Wifi Protected Setup - which makes it pretty easy to crack. WPS (with a broken protocol) was required by the Wifi alliance if you want a nice sticker on your box (and as a manufacturer you do). Some router firmware won't even let you turn it off. WEP, old but still needed for some very old clients, is also trivial to crack.
So, there are two currently known semi-trivial ways to get on a huge subset of "protected" Wifi networks. If someone were to log on to your network with those, it would be hard to prove it wasn't your infringement. Ahh, but haven't courts said they can't identify you by IP? True, but this is not a court case, this is a semi-monopolistic ISP that can dictate terms. (In my area, I only have one real choice, Comcast).
I"m not sure what "not coming back" signifies. We run a decently large Perl codebase. We add some new features (nothing big) new code tends to go to python (though some new perl stuff). But changes in the tools as we maintain the codebase is important to us.
First off, not all shares sold were sold to the public. Some bankers had to come in with buy orders to support the price at the end of the day. This is lost money, and shows that the shares were overpriced. There's some evidence that this is big enough to perturb other stocks - some feel there's enough Facebook stock on the issuers books that they needed to sell other stocks as a hedge.
If i'm an investor, where can I make money from a stock... I can either get from dividends (which won't happen any time soon with FB) or stock price growth. So, I look to growth. People act as if the Facebook IPO was one day, no, it was months in the making. All that pent up interest and demand couldn't support the price for one day. The bankers had to come in and buy to support that price at the end. What does that portend for future stock prices?
As for why would we care.... well Facebook cares. Not all stock that could be sold was sold at the IPO. People still hold stock, people still hold options. What does it mean for those shares that didn't participate?
And us in general? This was the IPO that everyone was thinking about. If Facebook can't hold IPO value even over the course of the first day, then a lot of other IPOs will be well scrutinized, and possibly put on hold.
In short, this is not good. It's not horrible, but it sure isn't neutral.
People buy stock generally to make money. There are some activist investors, but they'd buy to make a point, so they're not that price sensitive. So what's the path to make money?
They still teach you in some finance courses that you should price a stock based on the Net Present Value of what you think the dividends are going to be. This is also irrelevant, partly because hot tech stocks don't do dividends much (look at Apple) partly because investors don't think this way, and you'd be way out of sync with the market.
So, the thing people think about is, i'm going to sell this down the road for a huge hunk of cash. Why? because people want it. Fundamentals be damned, people want this stock. So.... if the stock doesn't bounce high on day 1, then you seriously dent the expectations I can sell for a huge chunk of cash later. You damper enthusiasm, which is a feedback loop for your stock value (we already know we're well beyond fundamentals with Facebook stock by this point). Your stock value will suffer. I understand your point (supply meeting demand, no consumer surplus and all that) but i'm sure there are facebook folks worried about this.
Re:Disgraced Republican Candidate for Governor
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
OK, more meta rants.
The problem with politicians is that they need to be re-elected. Failure is built into the system. You are stuck with a choice - do whats right, or pander to get re-elected. There are better and worse politicians, but none can escape from that fact. Even a lame duck President needs to provide coat tails to Congress. The most famous pork-barrel project I can think of was the Bridge To Nowhere, which was sponsored by a Republican. Part of the 2008 financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which Democratic Clinton pushed through. Again for emphasis, failure is built into the system.
All the weak name-calling (Libtards? really? are we all 8 now? should I call Republicans cootie-heads?) doesn't change that fact. It doesn't change the fact that we all need to work together. As much as we hate 30,000 people losing their jobs, this is just a small window on how global capitalism is playing out these days. Lowering of friction (easy shipping, cheap phone networks, the Internet) has changed the game so fast and so quickly that it's hard for a lot of people to compete.
The type of capitalism we employ is also a part of this. Shareholder capitalism encourages short-sighted behavior, nothing past this quarterly report. Other nations employ Stakeholder capitalism, where you try to think effects on everyone with a stake in your company, which are the shareholders of course, but also the workers, the people around your plant, and the economy in general. Henry Ford tried stakeholder capitalism. He realized paying his employees better helps the overall economy and helps him in the long run. He wasn't communist (though he was called that), he wasn't liberal or libtarded (he was a staunch conservative) but he realized there's long term health and it needs to be maintained.
These rules are hitting everyone. IBM is hollowing out - you'll see an IBM story like this soon. Bestbuy soon to be going away, though we still have empty Circuit City stores that were never rented, Borders gone... Its not that all of these people were stupid (many were), but they had the wrong focus, and it killed them once the markets changed a bit.
And illegal immigrants don't steal all the health care. I'd show you research but you'd probably call it Libtard-ed anyway. We have a systemic breakdown, and you're worried about a few Mexicans getting cheap Band-Aids from a hospital. There are huge problems that we face, that will affect everyone. We can't rely on simplistic issues (damn Mexicans?) and simplistic solutions (deport Mexicans?) and expect that to work. Tell me how exactly did illegal immigrants bring down Lehman? Exactly how did they force Bush to provide unfunded Medicare benefits, and fight two unfunded wars, destroying any financial cushion we had for the current mess?
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
You may not be a native English speaker, so you may not be aware of the fact that we have no commonly used gender-neutral, third person, singular pronoun for a person
Minor fix.
There is one, thon. But no one uses it. There's also "they", which in this case, when you're talking about a class of people (a generic CEO) it kind of makes sense. I'd have used "they" here, or "he" with no qualms.
Whitman may not have much of a choice, her bed was made long before she was CEO. It's not like Apotheker left the company in good hands. The worst I'd say about her is "caretaker CEO way in over her head could perform no miracles".
The 10,000 layoffs will suck for the 10,000, but it spreads well past that. A huge subset of them will need at least temporary unemployment benefits. Their house payments may get iffy, and the market is already precarious. Households will cut back on spending, affection the microeconomies around them. There are tremendous costs to be born now.
This is why I don't like the idea of the MBA US President. Bush #43 was an MBA, and so is Romney. Neither one of them has shown any ability to look at the big picture, at anything larger than the bottom line of a single company, from the point of view of the company. Layoffs for a company are great; they boost your stock price a bit. You pay a relatively small cost, because you've been taught since day 1 on your MBA that you should externalize costs as much as possible, essentially make your costs every one else's responsibility. Every layoff affects others, large layoffs affect a lot of people.
The coffin has been nailed for a while. The "true Hewlett-Packard" is probably Agilent, which spun off a long time ago. The HP you see now was pretty much just a printer ink company. The Apotheker move was one of the Stunningly Bad CEO Decisions in recent years, and HP itself had other competition for the S.B.C.D award in recent years (Fiorina, the Hurd fiasco)
I can't name one thing save Itanium that HP has come up with in recent years. When your biggest innovation is Itanic, you'e in trouble. Everything else is coasting, or acquisition (Compaq, Palm).
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
But it could just be me, I admit. I never understood gaming nostalgia. I try and go retro once in a while. Lasts about a day or two.
I still run MAME every once in a while. It's not nostalgia, it's that the games were of a different design. Sometimes i don't want an all inclusive virtual world with billions of ray-traced polygons. I want to blow stuff up.
The constraints made them simple, clever in some ways. Look at Qix, which was an 8 bit game but had a very clever design, using both intelligence and Arcade speed.
There used to be a Mac game called Spectre, (It ran on MacOS 6 and 7 to date myself some). It was a simple tank game where you shot from a fixed forward facing gun, and used the arrow keys for controls. Hmm, that makes a total of 5 keys. But the simplicity of that game made it accessible to anyone, and therefore we could build up big team games. We'd blow off an hour or two between classes. In some ways, this is still the most fun I've had gaming, able to bring everyone in, no matter their skill level.
Ironically, on BB, Browser apps are far from lovely. The BB native browser is among the worst I've ever tried, and IMHO makes a black mark on WebKit.
HTML sucks for touch screens. HTML apps don't work so well when you don't have a signal where native apps can still run. HTML apps can't tie into system APIs (RIM doesn't like losing the GMail native app because now you lose notifications).
WebOS had this model. Now it's gone. Apple had this model until they convinced Jobs to allow native apps. The number of apps soared, and you can see the success of native apps pushing a platform forward. Google even changes some of its webapps to native, for performance, API, and UI reasons.
This smells of coming from a point of weakness (Google is already changing some of its apps from native Blackberry to webapps).
That's not even mentioning that the Blackberry web browser makes me want to stick a fork in my eye (though the one in BB_OS 7.1 has improved to be merely very very bad).
Apple deserve credit because their system works/seamlessly/ instantly with any other iphone (I wouldn't be surprised if it works on tablets but I don't know for sure)
It does work, the tablet (or ipod touch) user needs to be on Messages (Messages is the app, iMessage the protocol) with their AppleID. iPhones can be 'on iMessage' with either their number (which is automatic) and/or their AppleID.
Apple does deserve credit for this. It's transparent. It doesn't prevent users from messaging other platforms - the same app will SMS you just as easily, though with carrier SMS charges. This is done with no setup - the device just detects if your target is available for iMessage or falls back to SMS. But you gain an advantage when your target has an iOS5 device, not sure how that's very evil.
The ones that should be scared are the folks at RIM. The one 'killer app' that many people still buy BlackBerries for is non-SMS-charging-BBM. Its hard to set up, and you need to type in a cryptic Hex number to find someone. If there are cheaper iPhones that do free messaging, or if Android gets an easy to use messenger like iMessage, BlackBerry is even further toast.
Not sure if you're trolling or just clueless about money. But I'll bite. Oddly enough you're wrong about both sides, so at least you don't have an agenda (that I can see).
All money value is theoretical, which what bugs me most about Ron Paul and the neo-goldbugs. Even gold has no value other than what we give it. We had to pick something of value, and gold just matched the characteristics best scarce but not too scarce, easily workable by ancients (smelts in the hundreds, not thousands of degrees), doesn't oxidize, etc.
BTW: Fractional Reserve banking was not created by bankers or the Left or the Right, but by goldsmiths in Britain who realized that when they started to create these notes that drew on gold deposits, they could create more than the deposits on hand. As long as things were stable and a small subset of people ever asked for their gold at any given time (we'd call this a bank run today).
Ownership of money is not limited - it can be created or destroyed as needed. Witness what the Fed had done during the Great Recession, creating dollars out of thin air. Why do they have value? Because we think they do.
The fruits of labor? The right is more about investment and solidity of value than worrying about labor. They worry more about capital markets, which would be hurt if inflation is high.
Governments tolerate light inflation for a few reasons. Mostly because it changes people's timelines for investment to the present not the future. I'll buy something now if i know it will be more expensive tomorrow.
Heavy inflation discourages investment - if I know the money i will get for this product 3 months in the future is less than the value of the investment now, I will not make that investment.
Deflation is even worse, it sets up a vicious cycle of no investment and layoffs. That's why we tolerate low inflation rather than zero inflation - don't want to be even close to dipping into deflation.
Please, go listen to old episodes of Planet Money, they're very informative.
Though people will pile on Apple (rightfully, see more below) you do need to remember that this hubris is somewhat justified. There was a time when Windows had tens of thousands of viruses to Mac OS's maybe, 8. Macs were just more secure. This was early web days, and there was some department of the government that recommended Mac OSX webservers. Partly because of design, partly because of the PowerPC chip which was hard to write exploit code for. Windows machines were defective by design. Outlook viruses were prevalent because of horrible design practices - trust an environment where you can lie about who you are, and trust files that you can 'lie' about what type of file you are (hide extensions, which determines file 'type' in Windows).
Apple is still working at it, I like their sandboxing idea. And not trying to hide things from users helps security more than you think.
That said, this botnet is due to bad Apple design. They made it hard to update Java, and a bad JVM is how this is being spread. I'm hoping that this will push them to better security.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the 'will the cloud guarantee 100% uptime for your apps' thing is a bit of a red herring. I can't guarantee 100% even if it's inhouse. Though, obviously, I know the failure modes a bit more.
I think there's a huge subset of IT departments out there that are not as technically skilled as {Amazon,Google,Azure,etc.}. For them, they won't worry about this part as much.
Granted, there are a lot of other things to worry about once your data hits "the cloud" but for uptime only, I'd trust a Google engineer more than I'd trust most people I've worked with.
At one point at school I was using Charlotte a text mode webbrowser on a mainframe. I also maintained a price list on our webserver, and I had to test on Charlotte to make sure it was readable there.
Surprisingly it seems to still exist and updated shockingly recently.
From TFA:
No mention of how badly beat up the dummy was. it did not give me confidence
Three strikes was bad enough, do we have to stretch a bad analogy so far as to six? How about Pi strikes, or square root of two strikes; the phrase is just as contrived.
There is a bug in the protocol for WPS - Wifi Protected Setup - which makes it pretty easy to crack. WPS (with a broken protocol) was required by the Wifi alliance if you want a nice sticker on your box (and as a manufacturer you do). Some router firmware won't even let you turn it off.
WEP, old but still needed for some very old clients, is also trivial to crack.
So, there are two currently known semi-trivial ways to get on a huge subset of "protected" Wifi networks. If someone were to log on to your network with those, it would be hard to prove it wasn't your infringement. Ahh, but haven't courts said they can't identify you by IP? True, but this is not a court case, this is a semi-monopolistic ISP that can dictate terms. (In my area, I only have one real choice, Comcast).
That link should "users caught uploading" not "users caught downloading".
How do Bittorrents fit in, which have an element of both? I'd suspect they'd cast a wide net, and call it an upload.
I"m not sure what "not coming back" signifies. We run a decently large Perl codebase. We add some new features (nothing big) new code tends to go to python (though some new perl stuff). But changes in the tools as we maintain the codebase is important to us.
This scares me. The fact that there are two compilers (which sows confusion) and none is feature complete... and it looks like Parrot was dropped.
This is beginning to look like the HURD. A lot of thrashing around for cool features, nothing ever released.
First off, not all shares sold were sold to the public. Some bankers had to come in with buy orders to support the price at the end of the day. This is lost money, and shows that the shares were overpriced. There's some evidence that this is big enough to perturb other stocks - some feel there's enough Facebook stock on the issuers books that they needed to sell other stocks as a hedge.
If i'm an investor, where can I make money from a stock... I can either get from dividends (which won't happen any time soon with FB) or stock price growth. So, I look to growth. People act as if the Facebook IPO was one day, no, it was months in the making. All that pent up interest and demand couldn't support the price for one day. The bankers had to come in and buy to support that price at the end. What does that portend for future stock prices?
As for why would we care.... well Facebook cares. Not all stock that could be sold was sold at the IPO. People still hold stock, people still hold options. What does it mean for those shares that didn't participate?
And us in general? This was the IPO that everyone was thinking about. If Facebook can't hold IPO value even over the course of the first day, then a lot of other IPOs will be well scrutinized, and possibly put on hold.
In short, this is not good. It's not horrible, but it sure isn't neutral.
True, but I think your timeline is too short.
People buy stock generally to make money. There are some activist investors, but they'd buy to make a point, so they're not that price sensitive. So what's the path to make money?
They still teach you in some finance courses that you should price a stock based on the Net Present Value of what you think the dividends are going to be. This is also irrelevant, partly because hot tech stocks don't do dividends much (look at Apple) partly because investors don't think this way, and you'd be way out of sync with the market.
So, the thing people think about is, i'm going to sell this down the road for a huge hunk of cash. Why? because people want it. Fundamentals be damned, people want this stock. So.... if the stock doesn't bounce high on day 1, then you seriously dent the expectations I can sell for a huge chunk of cash later. You damper enthusiasm, which is a feedback loop for your stock value (we already know we're well beyond fundamentals with Facebook stock by this point). Your stock value will suffer. I understand your point (supply meeting demand, no consumer surplus and all that) but i'm sure there are facebook folks worried about this.
OK, more meta rants.
The problem with politicians is that they need to be re-elected. Failure is built into the system. You are stuck with a choice - do whats right, or pander to get re-elected. There are better and worse politicians, but none can escape from that fact. Even a lame duck President needs to provide coat tails to Congress. The most famous pork-barrel project I can think of was the Bridge To Nowhere, which was sponsored by a Republican. Part of the 2008 financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which Democratic Clinton pushed through. Again for emphasis, failure is built into the system.
All the weak name-calling (Libtards? really? are we all 8 now? should I call Republicans cootie-heads?) doesn't change that fact. It doesn't change the fact that we all need to work together. As much as we hate 30,000 people losing their jobs, this is just a small window on how global capitalism is playing out these days. Lowering of friction (easy shipping, cheap phone networks, the Internet) has changed the game so fast and so quickly that it's hard for a lot of people to compete.
The type of capitalism we employ is also a part of this. Shareholder capitalism encourages short-sighted behavior, nothing past this quarterly report. Other nations employ Stakeholder capitalism, where you try to think effects on everyone with a stake in your company, which are the shareholders of course, but also the workers, the people around your plant, and the economy in general. Henry Ford tried stakeholder capitalism. He realized paying his employees better helps the overall economy and helps him in the long run. He wasn't communist (though he was called that), he wasn't liberal or libtarded (he was a staunch conservative) but he realized there's long term health and it needs to be maintained.
These rules are hitting everyone. IBM is hollowing out - you'll see an IBM story like this soon. Bestbuy soon to be going away, though we still have empty Circuit City stores that were never rented, Borders gone... Its not that all of these people were stupid (many were), but they had the wrong focus, and it killed them once the markets changed a bit.
And illegal immigrants don't steal all the health care. I'd show you research but you'd probably call it Libtard-ed anyway. We have a systemic breakdown, and you're worried about a few Mexicans getting cheap Band-Aids from a hospital. There are huge problems that we face, that will affect everyone. We can't rely on simplistic issues (damn Mexicans?) and simplistic solutions (deport Mexicans?) and expect that to work. Tell me how exactly did illegal immigrants bring down Lehman? Exactly how did they force Bush to provide unfunded Medicare benefits, and fight two unfunded wars, destroying any financial cushion we had for the current mess?
Minor fix.
There is one, thon. But no one uses it. There's also "they", which in this case, when you're talking about a class of people (a generic CEO) it kind of makes sense. I'd have used "they" here, or "he" with no qualms.
Whitman may not have much of a choice, her bed was made long before she was CEO. It's not like Apotheker left the company in good hands. The worst I'd say about her is "caretaker CEO way in over her head could perform no miracles".
The 10,000 layoffs will suck for the 10,000, but it spreads well past that. A huge subset of them will need at least temporary unemployment benefits. Their house payments may get iffy, and the market is already precarious. Households will cut back on spending, affection the microeconomies around them. There are tremendous costs to be born now.
This is why I don't like the idea of the MBA US President. Bush #43 was an MBA, and so is Romney. Neither one of them has shown any ability to look at the big picture, at anything larger than the bottom line of a single company, from the point of view of the company. Layoffs for a company are great; they boost your stock price a bit. You pay a relatively small cost, because you've been taught since day 1 on your MBA that you should externalize costs as much as possible, essentially make your costs every one else's responsibility. Every layoff affects others, large layoffs affect a lot of people.
The coffin has been nailed for a while. The "true Hewlett-Packard" is probably Agilent, which spun off a long time ago. The HP you see now was pretty much just a printer ink company. The Apotheker move was one of the Stunningly Bad CEO Decisions in recent years, and HP itself had other competition for the S.B.C.D award in recent years (Fiorina, the Hurd fiasco)
I can't name one thing save Itanium that HP has come up with in recent years. When your biggest innovation is Itanic, you'e in trouble. Everything else is coasting, or acquisition (Compaq, Palm).
Solyent Green... it's made of PEOPLE
Some think it's too much CO2:
http://www.inquisitr.com/206123/high-co2-levels-are-making-people-fat-says-new-study/
I still run MAME every once in a while. It's not nostalgia, it's that the games were of a different design. Sometimes i don't want an all inclusive virtual world with billions of ray-traced polygons. I want to blow stuff up.
The constraints made them simple, clever in some ways. Look at Qix, which was an 8 bit game but had a very clever design, using both intelligence and Arcade speed.
There used to be a Mac game called Spectre, (It ran on MacOS 6 and 7 to date myself some). It was a simple tank game where you shot from a fixed forward facing gun, and used the arrow keys for controls. Hmm, that makes a total of 5 keys. But the simplicity of that game made it accessible to anyone, and therefore we could build up big team games. We'd blow off an hour or two between classes. In some ways, this is still the most fun I've had gaming, able to bring everyone in, no matter their skill level.
Ironically, on BB, Browser apps are far from lovely. The BB native browser is among the worst I've ever tried, and IMHO makes a black mark on WebKit.
HTML sucks for touch screens. HTML apps don't work so well when you don't have a signal where native apps can still run. HTML apps can't tie into system APIs (RIM doesn't like losing the GMail native app because now you lose notifications).
WebOS had this model. Now it's gone. Apple had this model until they convinced Jobs to allow native apps. The number of apps soared, and you can see the success of native apps pushing a platform forward. Google even changes some of its webapps to native, for performance, API, and UI reasons.
This smells of coming from a point of weakness (Google is already changing some of its apps from native Blackberry to webapps).
That's not even mentioning that the Blackberry web browser makes me want to stick a fork in my eye (though the one in BB_OS 7.1 has improved to be merely very very bad).
It does work, the tablet (or ipod touch) user needs to be on Messages (Messages is the app, iMessage the protocol) with their AppleID. iPhones can be 'on iMessage' with either their number (which is automatic) and/or their AppleID.
Apple does deserve credit for this. It's transparent. It doesn't prevent users from messaging other platforms - the same app will SMS you just as easily, though with carrier SMS charges. This is done with no setup - the device just detects if your target is available for iMessage or falls back to SMS. But you gain an advantage when your target has an iOS5 device, not sure how that's very evil.
The ones that should be scared are the folks at RIM. The one 'killer app' that many people still buy BlackBerries for is non-SMS-charging-BBM. Its hard to set up, and you need to type in a cryptic Hex number to find someone. If there are cheaper iPhones that do free messaging, or if Android gets an easy to use messenger like iMessage, BlackBerry is even further toast.
Yes they did. Keynesian economics realizes these things. That you build a surplus in good years so you have the money for stabilizers in lean years.
We even had that money... remember the surplus under Clinton?
But we spent it. The Bush tax cuts, the Medicare giveaway, the wars... it was squandered. And both Republicans and Democrats voted for it.
Not sure if you're trolling or just clueless about money. But I'll bite. Oddly enough you're wrong about both sides, so at least you don't have an agenda (that I can see).
All money value is theoretical, which what bugs me most about Ron Paul and the neo-goldbugs. Even gold has no value other than what we give it. We had to pick something of value, and gold just matched the characteristics best scarce but not too scarce, easily workable by ancients (smelts in the hundreds, not thousands of degrees), doesn't oxidize, etc.
BTW: Fractional Reserve banking was not created by bankers or the Left or the Right, but by goldsmiths in Britain who realized that when they started to create these notes that drew on gold deposits, they could create more than the deposits on hand. As long as things were stable and a small subset of people ever asked for their gold at any given time (we'd call this a bank run today).
Ownership of money is not limited - it can be created or destroyed as needed. Witness what the Fed had done during the Great Recession, creating dollars out of thin air. Why do they have value? Because we think they do.
The fruits of labor? The right is more about investment and solidity of value than worrying about labor. They worry more about capital markets, which would be hurt if inflation is high.
Governments tolerate light inflation for a few reasons. Mostly because it changes people's timelines for investment to the present not the future. I'll buy something now if i know it will be more expensive tomorrow.
Heavy inflation discourages investment - if I know the money i will get for this product 3 months in the future is less than the value of the investment now, I will not make that investment.
Deflation is even worse, it sets up a vicious cycle of no investment and layoffs. That's why we tolerate low inflation rather than zero inflation - don't want to be even close to dipping into deflation.
Please, go listen to old episodes of Planet Money, they're very informative.
Was it Descarted?
I think, therefore I am not a congressman...
Begun. the cat and mouse game has.
Proper grammar, Yoda would speak with.
Though people will pile on Apple (rightfully, see more below) you do need to remember that this hubris is somewhat justified. There was a time when Windows had tens of thousands of viruses to Mac OS's maybe, 8. Macs were just more secure. This was early web days, and there was some department of the government that recommended Mac OSX webservers. Partly because of design, partly because of the PowerPC chip which was hard to write exploit code for. Windows machines were defective by design. Outlook viruses were prevalent because of horrible design practices - trust an environment where you can lie about who you are, and trust files that you can 'lie' about what type of file you are (hide extensions, which determines file 'type' in Windows).
Apple is still working at it, I like their sandboxing idea. And not trying to hide things from users helps security more than you think.
That said, this botnet is due to bad Apple design. They made it hard to update Java, and a bad JVM is how this is being spread. I'm hoping that this will push them to better security.