Maybe you're the illiterate one here (or at least a little obtuse). They are already in office there is NOTHING that (let me use your words here) "we can do something about" And that really gets to the crux of the matter doesn't it, BOTH major parties are probably for this, we have direct proof with the clipper chip from the previous one, and we have a pretty damn good suspicion of the current one and how it will react to this.
The only thing that WE CAN DO ANYTHING about that is to not vote for either of them enough times (and vote for another that shares our views) so that one of the two major parties will accept those views. There is nothing we can do about the current or past administrations, but look at them and learn; and for some reason it would appear you don't want to look at the past.
Other than trying to talk around it and obsfucate the question what are you saying? That the Dems would embrace this with open arms or not? here's a hint: if past history means anything look up the clipper chip
But I think the rub people have with the solutions that have been presented so far (i.e. Kyoto) is that the there is so much pain to the solution that it outways the guess of the fix. Everybody will agree that reducing polution is good, I don't think you could find a sane person on the planet that would disagree with that; where the disagreement is.. would carving off a good chuck of the economy, and forcing a significant portion of the population be out of work and go into poverty be resonable action on those assumptions?
With the crazed speculation that has occured over the years, it's no wonder that when Kyoto was presented before Congress for a "test vote" to give the President a barometer it was killed 100 to 0; not a single Senator voted for it. The greenest of the green in office didn't even give it a cursory "yes" vote.
Biggest problem is that we have no real un-biased information from either side, most everything is going for a headline grabbing hook. You grab a headline you get research money, you get research money you're set for a while; of course now you've got to continue to get research money, so you've now make even louder headline grabbing messages.
Umm... the examples you give have the same problem with removing malware. I can just as easily boot a windows box from a cd and md5sum every file as I can a linux system. What it really boils down to is that the time and effort to try do that investigation on a system is getting more expensive than just reload the OS to an original point in time.
The rule of thumb has been for years and still stands today, no matter what the OS that if it's compromised and has malware on it, unless it is overly expensive to recreate i.e. you no longer have the install media for program you bought 8 years ago and the company no longer exists (been there done that) you should tear it down and reload.
What could they sue Yahoo on? That a search engine that specializes in selling search information to ad companies would not tell information? So there's no expectation of privacy there, you may have some very stupid assumption that Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc will hold your privacy in more importance than you yourself do. Really, come on they are selling your information to others people, they're whole business model is about profiting off your personal information. That's before you even get into the whole it's a legal supoena request, a company operating inside a country has to abide by that country's rules or get out.
As we've seen in the past some lawyer could probably be able to make some weird twisted case (i.e. all the didn't have a sticker saying "don't use use electric drill as a haircurler"), but removing those situations I don't see what the users expecation is.
Probably because of the long term contracts the Gov has had with IBM for decades (with an S), Lenovo makes them for IBM and IBM than sells them to the Gov.
I'd say that creating additional copies of something removes the scarcity of an item. An in reality how scarce an item is, is what the value of something is. What brings value to a CD is not it's raw materials, but that someone is limiting it's release. They are making it scarce by controlling it. When you make a copy you are removing part of the control that is on the item, you are removing it's value by reducing it's scarcity and ultimately making it theft under your definition. What is arguable is not whether it's theft or not (as it is), but what is the true ammount one is affecting.
Diamonds are scarce and as such have a higher price value, is tomorrow all the sand on the beaches turned to diamonds, all diamonds would have lowered value. The price of Oracle is $40k per cpu, that isn't what a few cd's and manuals cost, but that Oracle has put something into it that is scarce (other products don't have, etc) and people are willing to pay for that scarce item.
Other than totatl speculation what proof do you have that they are just "pandering"? Do you have directly conflicting quotes, etc to come to this conclusion?
What prove do you have that it was removed from the table as soon as he got into office, or are you assuming it? I'd like to see a quote from Bush saying that he was removing it from the table in the time frame of Jan 2001 to Feb 2001 (when he took office to when it went to appeals).
Heck I already proved it to you showing that both parties dropped the ball, all you have to do is look at my post. I've got DEMOCRATS removing it from the table, actual quotes from them, are you trying to deny that what they said in public record never happened? Why are you so afraid of saying both parties are bad?
Heck it's only reality I'm talking about here, not fruity-ville where one party eats babies for breakfast and the other party's tears provide everlasting nourishment to dieing orpahns.
So let me get this straight you are wanting to take your corprate documents that have value in them, put them out on some website that you have no control over, owned by someone else, managed by someone else, has no document destruction policy because you have to start up a VPN client to get at them?
How about this... do what everybody else has been doing for years. Put up your own web/ftp server put the docs onto it and you can control who has access to it, when it get's shreaded, etc. Google with writely is about the worst corporate solution out there. Just think of the confidential information held in your client documentation!
You really have boner for just one party don't you? You have your blinders strapped so tight to your head that not only can you not look left or right, but you can't move your head.
The reason why breakup was not pursued was because two separate appeals courts said not to, that Judge Jackson tainted the ruling himself and directly told the justice department not to. You need to get back and look at historical facts rather than spouting off partisan crap.
Actually what you are doing is turning a blind eye and saying "only Republicans do bad things". Before you step in and try and say one side does these things, you better make sure that there aren't any skeleton's running around before you make gratuitous wide sweeping statements like you did.
1) 2 days after the ruling against Microsoft, the Bill Gates was a guest of honor for President Clinton's "new economy" conference 2) After the ruling Ginny Terzano from Clinton's press office went to work for Microsoft 3) After the ruling Neel Lattimore, Hillary Clinton's press secretary went to work for Microsoft 4) After the ruling Democratic Senator Tom Downey went to work for Microsoft 5) After the ruling Microsoft hired two heads of the Clinton anti-trust division 6) Quote by Senator Robert Torricelli chairman of the Democratic campaign committee: "Only the United States would consider breaking up a company that has done this much economically to advance our national interest,"... "It is not in the interest of the United States to have this company divided." 7) Quote by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer "We could break up Microsoft, and find the leading company in the world could be Japanese or Chinese or German."
Hey maybe he's right, when people in Africa rape babies because they think it will cure aids they actually are correct and don't need to be educated at all since they were "smart" enough to come up with that line of thought. They don't need no stinking books to figure out miracle cures like that, they have all the edumacation that they need.
But what are you using for comparison time frames? Are you looking at the insane time during the 90's when people who walked out of high-school and would make 100k figures with no knowledge and saying "well now his dot-bomb company went under and his new job only pays 50k, so obviously our economy is screwed". As I've said before the 90's were unsustainable, any comparison to those levels is ludicrous. Appropriate comparative rates would be to take the rates of people from the late 80's early 90's adjust for inflation and compare to today; I think what you'll find is that we are still living way too high on the hog. True, people with no experience have gotten way expensive houses on those dot-bomb job expectations and are no longer able to support them when reality came in, in 2000. But I still say that relative to history our economy is going insanely good, much better than it should be. The income level's in the 90's fits your winning the lottery analogy extremely well; everybody expected to continue to hit the massive lottery winning every week. They did for a while and then reality came in and adjusted wages down, what I'm saying is that they weren't adjusted down enough. When janitors are doing day trading off of tips they hear off yahoo finance you know that it's not sustainable, we are almost back to that same excuberance level now. Definetly people aren't making the 90's millionaire money, but you can't expect to walk out of college and make even 50k. That crazyness can't be sustained, just can't if you are buying houses, cars, lifestyles on those types of expectations than you really are expecting to constantly hit the lottery.
I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.
So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically, since GDP has been used for decades now and what basically every economists shows as a barometer (obviously very high-level guestimation for detailed information, there are lots of complex calcs that they get paid to know and use)? There's a reason I gave out multiple statistics, you combine the three and it basically can give you what your are asking for: GDP rising, low unemployment rates, inflation low but sustained. That trifecta of information basically shows that individuals are thriving in the economy.
Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.
Maybe you should look a little more at the OECD website I gave out and get a better understanding then. Oecd is an international organization of different countries based out of France that take countries different methods and make them statistically comparable (which I why I used those numbers). The US does measure it very close to the way other countries do (every country from Canada to Britain to Australia do it a little different), random sampling of people and whether or not they are actively looking for work; it's not based upon what I see a lot of wrong complaints about "who's getting benefits".
Well you go on believing that FUD: We've already made it back to the 90's, I don't think the 90's rate is sustainable at all so I'm expecting a downturn over the next couple of years because we are doing so good it can't be sustained. As for your statement about unemployment figures the change only was for federal employee's benefits affecting only an extremely small fraction of the number. The random sampling method continues today, let me let snopes.com school you on your FUD: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.htm On the economy, let me just copy and paste what I did on another forum back in November (which is why some of the numbers are a little older than a couple of months but still less than a year, and we've gotten even better since then)
ftp://ftp.iza.org/charts/PDF56_e.pdf For the past 3-4 years the US has had the highest GDP growth of: germany, france, italy, japan, canada, UK & EU in general
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/47/35326565.pdf From OECD standardized unemployment rates, July of 05 we have a level of 5.0, less than Germany (9.3), less than France (9.7), less than Italy (7.8), less than Canada (6.8), only UK (4.7) and Japan (4.4) have a lower one.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/ CurrentInflation.asp For about a year we've been hovering at around 3% or so (up and down) inflation, which is the same it was before 9/11. You'll note around 9/11 Greenspan dumped a whole lot of cash into the economy & China picked up it's output significantly decreasing inflation to some of the lowest rates it's ever been (~1 percent). Greenspan only lately has been saying that our economy has been doing so *good* that our growth rate is starting to encourage those inflationary items, so he's started gradually raising the interest rate to start removing dollars out of the economy to slow it's growth rate down. Classic example of a Phillips curve. I think greenspan should probably start getting more aggressive on it as our economy has been going so *good* that we need to stop it from turning into a beast like it did in the 2000 where we get another big bubble. Right now it ain't sky high, it's nowhere near sky high, under 1-2% means our employment level isn't doing well and pressuring it down, over 5% is high, over 10% is sky high (look to the 70's).
So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting) and we have one of the lowest unemployment rates. Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world. Our inflation rate is increasing but it's still very reasonable, but the government does need to start pulling money out of the economy because we are doing so good we are starting overheat it. The govenment needs to start becoming more miserly with our money: spend when the goings bad and save when the things go good to reduce the major peaks and valleys. Unlike you, from all the things I see as economic indicators that I think our economy's been doing *so* good that we should be expecting a dip here in the next few years as part of the general up/down cycle, and we should start pulling money out of the economy.
Re:Should Be Clear Why Developers Choose Sony :)
on
PS3 - Lateness With Linux?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to "stockpile" components? If Sony was doing what you are saying, it would cost them millions (with the S). Heck if Sony were to simply put that cash they would spend to "stockpile" components this early, into a very low interest personal saving bank account they could probably make a couple of million on that by itself. The cost of stockpiling components early would cost Sony dearly to do, there's a reason that the average lifespan that Dell "owns" a component is measured in minutes rather than hours or days.
Everybody is saying that Sony can't buy components today for $500, and has to sell it at a loss. So using the number that people say of $800 for today's component cost and using your 500k units number for June that means; Sony would dump out 400 million dollars to sit on equipment for 5 months. I can get 6 month CD's between 4-5% APY, just sticking that cash into a CD for half a year would yield them ~8 million dollars (won't go into calculating APY on intervals, because you get the picture). That much cash for basically doing nothing, by simply not purchasing anything for a month they get more than a million dollars in benefit, you can even double the effect as by spending the money early not only did you not gain a million from the bank, you have a million dollars less than before in equipment that aren't using.
Linux.... yeah, I'm sure they are going to come out with a linux media server that works with the DRM... OK you just go along with that. Linux is going to be a niche option that won't allow you to use the benefit of high-def digital output, blu-ray, or gaming. It's going to be niche and stay niche.
Yes I would, because he said that by encrypting the data it would prevent him from being in prison for 3 years, which would mean he broke the law and like I said (I'll repeat it because obviously you didn't read it)
As using someone elses password to get to information that you aren't allowed access to is a criminal act, and that is what will get you the three years in prison. Possible concern over source privacy, etc for reporters won't get you in prison for three years and is a totaly different statement than what you said.
Unlike you I have a problem with giving reporters free reign in breaking the law to get information. I guess in your world it would be OK for reporters trying to dig up information to break into a bank and get records to look for information. Hey, they are just looking for information aren't they?
If it's all about alturistic benefit, than all they would need to do is pass the information to proper group in congress who has proper authorization to bring forth (or not) that information to the public... you know checks and balances... So that instead of a single person having massive power and deciding whether or not this information is of national defense, etc (individual taking all the power and reporting Valerie Plame) and give it to the group that the country elected to act on our behalf, if the people we elected to act on our behalf believe it's critical enough they can as a group bring it public or as individuals bring it public.
I wouldn't use the word reporters but more of the word criminals. Should be:
I wonder how many criminals are using encryption on their Filesystems these days? If they are not, now is the time to start. A bit of a hassle, but maybe less hassle than spending 3 years in prison.
As using someone elses password to get to information that you aren't allowed access to is a criminal act, and that is what will get you the three years in prison. Possible concern over source privacy, etc for reporters won't get you in prison for three years and is a totaly different statement than what you said.
You can thank the lovely dvd licensors for that, they are contractularly bound to now allow anything with macrovision output rez higher than 480p out. What one can do is run it through something else to remove the encoding and then you can uprez it to your hearts content.
I think you seem to have forgotten history about the Clinton administration (I'll have to do a little guilt-by-association to her husband as she wasn't in office for parts, but I think it's reasonable). It's not a voter ploy, she actually believes this crap.
Nope, not being politically biased; but going more on facts. On the campaign trail kerry was claiming responsibility for it, that's the big reason. Heck even factcheck.org attributes it to Kerry and must be playing partisan politics as well since they don't mention anybody else.
"The ad says Kerry "was fighting for legislation to cut off terrorist money laundering before 9/11." And in fact, a section of a Kerry bill on money-laundering was virtually copied into the PATRIOT Act and praised by Bush administration officials."
Maybe the sooner you realize that both sides are dicks the better for you, because it would appear that you might just be a zealot that can't let anybody on your "side" have a complaint against them. Look into Kerry's history he's got some serious privacy issues in his closet...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're the illiterate one here (or at least a little obtuse). They are already in office there is NOTHING that (let me use your words here) "we can do something about" And that really gets to the crux of the matter doesn't it, BOTH major parties are probably for this, we have direct proof with the clipper chip from the previous one, and we have a pretty damn good suspicion of the current one and how it will react to this.
The only thing that WE CAN DO ANYTHING about that is to not vote for either of them enough times (and vote for another that shares our views) so that one of the two major parties will accept those views. There is nothing we can do about the current or past administrations, but look at them and learn; and for some reason it would appear you don't want to look at the past.
Other than trying to talk around it and obsfucate the question what are you saying? That the Dems would embrace this with open arms or not? here's a hint: if past history means anything look up the clipper chip
But I think the rub people have with the solutions that have been presented so far (i.e. Kyoto) is that the there is so much pain to the solution that it outways the guess of the fix. Everybody will agree that reducing polution is good, I don't think you could find a sane person on the planet that would disagree with that; where the disagreement is.. would carving off a good chuck of the economy, and forcing a significant portion of the population be out of work and go into poverty be resonable action on those assumptions?
With the crazed speculation that has occured over the years, it's no wonder that when Kyoto was presented before Congress for a "test vote" to give the President a barometer it was killed 100 to 0; not a single Senator voted for it. The greenest of the green in office didn't even give it a cursory "yes" vote.
Biggest problem is that we have no real un-biased information from either side, most everything is going for a headline grabbing hook. You grab a headline you get research money, you get research money you're set for a while; of course now you've got to continue to get research money, so you've now make even louder headline grabbing messages.
Nothing to do with malware, nothing to do with MALWARE? You yourself said this... let me quote you because you can't seem to remember your own words
Basically, the press should be saying that it impossible to remove malware from windows.
Umm... the examples you give have the same problem with removing malware. I can just as easily boot a windows box from a cd and md5sum every file as I can a linux system. What it really boils down to is that the time and effort to try do that investigation on a system is getting more expensive than just reload the OS to an original point in time.
The rule of thumb has been for years and still stands today, no matter what the OS that if it's compromised and has malware on it, unless it is overly expensive to recreate i.e. you no longer have the install media for program you bought 8 years ago and the company no longer exists (been there done that) you should tear it down and reload.
What could they sue Yahoo on? That a search engine that specializes in selling search information to ad companies would not tell information? So there's no expectation of privacy there, you may have some very stupid assumption that Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc will hold your privacy in more importance than you yourself do. Really, come on they are selling your information to others people, they're whole business model is about profiting off your personal information. That's before you even get into the whole it's a legal supoena request, a company operating inside a country has to abide by that country's rules or get out.
As we've seen in the past some lawyer could probably be able to make some weird twisted case (i.e. all the didn't have a sticker saying "don't use use electric drill as a haircurler"), but removing those situations I don't see what the users expecation is.
Probably because of the long term contracts the Gov has had with IBM for decades (with an S), Lenovo makes them for IBM and IBM than sells them to the Gov.
I'd say that creating additional copies of something removes the scarcity of an item. An in reality how scarce an item is, is what the value of something is. What brings value to a CD is not it's raw materials, but that someone is limiting it's release. They are making it scarce by controlling it. When you make a copy you are removing part of the control that is on the item, you are removing it's value by reducing it's scarcity and ultimately making it theft under your definition. What is arguable is not whether it's theft or not (as it is), but what is the true ammount one is affecting.
Diamonds are scarce and as such have a higher price value, is tomorrow all the sand on the beaches turned to diamonds, all diamonds would have lowered value. The price of Oracle is $40k per cpu, that isn't what a few cd's and manuals cost, but that Oracle has put something into it that is scarce (other products don't have, etc) and people are willing to pay for that scarce item.
Other than totatl speculation what proof do you have that they are just "pandering"? Do you have directly conflicting quotes, etc to come to this conclusion?
Actually history says that the US Dems are very "regulation" friendly, here's examples just from recent history
1) Tipper Gore & music
2) CDA
3) COPA (Son of CDA)
4) Hillary Clinton's current violent gaming regulation proposals
What prove do you have that it was removed from the table as soon as he got into office, or are you assuming it? I'd like to see a quote from Bush saying that he was removing it from the table in the time frame of Jan 2001 to Feb 2001 (when he took office to when it went to appeals).
Heck I already proved it to you showing that both parties dropped the ball, all you have to do is look at my post. I've got DEMOCRATS removing it from the table, actual quotes from them, are you trying to deny that what they said in public record never happened? Why are you so afraid of saying both parties are bad?
Heck it's only reality I'm talking about here, not fruity-ville where one party eats babies for breakfast and the other party's tears provide everlasting nourishment to dieing orpahns.
So let me get this straight you are wanting to take your corprate documents that have value in them, put them out on some website that you have no control over, owned by someone else, managed by someone else, has no document destruction policy because you have to start up a VPN client to get at them?
How about this... do what everybody else has been doing for years. Put up your own web/ftp server put the docs onto it and you can control who has access to it, when it get's shreaded, etc. Google with writely is about the worst corporate solution out there. Just think of the confidential information held in your client documentation!
You really have boner for just one party don't you? You have your blinders strapped so tight to your head that not only can you not look left or right, but you can't move your head.
The reason why breakup was not pursued was because two separate appeals courts said not to, that Judge Jackson tainted the ruling himself and directly told the justice department not to. You need to get back and look at historical facts rather than spouting off partisan crap.
Actually what you are doing is turning a blind eye and saying "only Republicans do bad things". Before you step in and try and say one side does these things, you better make sure that there aren't any skeleton's running around before you make gratuitous wide sweeping statements like you did.
... "It is not in the interest of the United States to have this company divided."
1) 2 days after the ruling against Microsoft, the Bill Gates was a guest of honor for President Clinton's "new economy" conference
2) After the ruling Ginny Terzano from Clinton's press office went to work for Microsoft
3) After the ruling Neel Lattimore, Hillary Clinton's press secretary went to work for Microsoft
4) After the ruling Democratic Senator Tom Downey went to work for Microsoft
5) After the ruling Microsoft hired two heads of the Clinton anti-trust division
6) Quote by Senator Robert Torricelli chairman of the Democratic campaign committee:
"Only the United States would consider breaking up a company that has done this much economically to advance our national interest,"
7) Quote by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer "We could break up Microsoft, and find the leading company in the world could be Japanese or Chinese or German."
Hey maybe he's right, when people in Africa rape babies because they think it will cure aids they actually are correct and don't need to be educated at all since they were "smart" enough to come up with that line of thought. They don't need no stinking books to figure out miracle cures like that, they have all the edumacation that they need.
But what are you using for comparison time frames? Are you looking at the insane time during the 90's when people who walked out of high-school and would make 100k figures with no knowledge and saying "well now his dot-bomb company went under and his new job only pays 50k, so obviously our economy is screwed". As I've said before the 90's were unsustainable, any comparison to those levels is ludicrous. Appropriate comparative rates would be to take the rates of people from the late 80's early 90's adjust for inflation and compare to today; I think what you'll find is that we are still living way too high on the hog. True, people with no experience have gotten way expensive houses on those dot-bomb job expectations and are no longer able to support them when reality came in, in 2000. But I still say that relative to history our economy is going insanely good, much better than it should be. The income level's in the 90's fits your winning the lottery analogy extremely well; everybody expected to continue to hit the massive lottery winning every week. They did for a while and then reality came in and adjusted wages down, what I'm saying is that they weren't adjusted down enough. When janitors are doing day trading off of tips they hear off yahoo finance you know that it's not sustainable, we are almost back to that same excuberance level now. Definetly people aren't making the 90's millionaire money, but you can't expect to walk out of college and make even 50k. That crazyness can't be sustained, just can't if you are buying houses, cars, lifestyles on those types of expectations than you really are expecting to constantly hit the lottery.
I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.
So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically, since GDP has been used for decades now and what basically every economists shows as a barometer (obviously very high-level guestimation for detailed information, there are lots of complex calcs that they get paid to know and use)? There's a reason I gave out multiple statistics, you combine the three and it basically can give you what your are asking for: GDP rising, low unemployment rates, inflation low but sustained. That trifecta of information basically shows that individuals are thriving in the economy.
Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.
Maybe you should look a little more at the OECD website I gave out and get a better understanding then. Oecd is an international organization of different countries based out of France that take countries different methods and make them statistically comparable (which I why I used those numbers). The US does measure it very close to the way other countries do (every country from Canada to Britain to Australia do it a little different), random sampling of people and whether or not they are actively looking for work; it's not based upon what I see a lot of wrong complaints about "who's getting benefits".
Well you go on believing that FUD: We've already made it back to the 90's, I don't think the 90's rate is sustainable at all so I'm expecting a downturn over the next couple of years because we are doing so good it can't be sustained. As for your statement about unemployment figures the change only was for federal employee's benefits affecting only an extremely small fraction of the number. The random sampling method continues today, let me let snopes.com school you on your FUD: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.htm On the economy, let me just copy and paste what I did on another forum back in November (which is why some of the numbers are a little older than a couple of months but still less than a year, and we've gotten even better since then)
/ CurrentInflation.asp
ftp://ftp.iza.org/charts/PDF56_e.pdf
For the past 3-4 years the US has had the highest GDP growth of: germany, france, italy, japan, canada, UK & EU in general
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/47/35326565.pdf
From OECD standardized unemployment rates, July of 05 we have a level of 5.0, less than Germany (9.3), less than France (9.7), less than Italy (7.8), less than Canada (6.8), only UK (4.7) and Japan (4.4) have a lower one.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate
For about a year we've been hovering at around 3% or so (up and down) inflation, which is the same it was before 9/11. You'll note around 9/11 Greenspan dumped a whole lot of cash into the economy & China picked up it's output significantly decreasing inflation to some of the lowest rates it's ever been (~1 percent). Greenspan only lately has been saying that our economy has been doing so *good* that our growth rate is starting to encourage those inflationary items, so he's started gradually raising the interest rate to start removing dollars out of the economy to slow it's growth rate down. Classic example of a Phillips curve. I think greenspan should probably start getting more aggressive on it as our economy has been going so *good* that we need to stop it from turning into a beast like it did in the 2000 where we get another big bubble. Right now it ain't sky high, it's nowhere near sky high, under 1-2% means our employment level isn't doing well and pressuring it down, over 5% is high, over 10% is sky high (look to the 70's).
So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting) and we have one of the lowest unemployment rates. Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world. Our inflation rate is increasing but it's still very reasonable, but the government does need to start pulling money out of the economy because we are doing so good we are starting overheat it. The govenment needs to start becoming more miserly with our money: spend when the goings bad and save when the things go good to reduce the major peaks and valleys. Unlike you, from all the things I see as economic indicators that I think our economy's been doing *so* good that we should be expecting a dip here in the next few years as part of the general up/down cycle, and we should start pulling money out of the economy.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to "stockpile" components? If Sony was doing what you are saying, it would cost them millions (with the S). Heck if Sony were to simply put that cash they would spend to "stockpile" components this early, into a very low interest personal saving bank account they could probably make a couple of million on that by itself. The cost of stockpiling components early would cost Sony dearly to do, there's a reason that the average lifespan that Dell "owns" a component is measured in minutes rather than hours or days.
Everybody is saying that Sony can't buy components today for $500, and has to sell it at a loss. So using the number that people say of $800 for today's component cost and using your 500k units number for June that means; Sony would dump out 400 million dollars to sit on equipment for 5 months. I can get 6 month CD's between 4-5% APY, just sticking that cash into a CD for half a year would yield them ~8 million dollars (won't go into calculating APY on intervals, because you get the picture). That much cash for basically doing nothing, by simply not purchasing anything for a month they get more than a million dollars in benefit, you can even double the effect as by spending the money early not only did you not gain a million from the bank, you have a million dollars less than before in equipment that aren't using.
Linux.... yeah, I'm sure they are going to come out with a linux media server that works with the DRM... OK you just go along with that. Linux is going to be a niche option that won't allow you to use the benefit of high-def digital output, blu-ray, or gaming. It's going to be niche and stay niche.
Yes I would, because he said that by encrypting the data it would prevent him from being in prison for 3 years, which would mean he broke the law and like I said (I'll repeat it because obviously you didn't read it)
As using someone elses password to get to information that you aren't allowed access to is a criminal act, and that is what will get you the three years in prison. Possible concern over source privacy, etc for reporters won't get you in prison for three years and is a totaly different statement than what you said.
Unlike you I have a problem with giving reporters free reign in breaking the law to get information. I guess in your world it would be OK for reporters trying to dig up information to break into a bank and get records to look for information. Hey, they are just looking for information aren't they?
If it's all about alturistic benefit, than all they would need to do is pass the information to proper group in congress who has proper authorization to bring forth (or not) that information to the public... you know checks and balances... So that instead of a single person having massive power and deciding whether or not this information is of national defense, etc (individual taking all the power and reporting Valerie Plame) and give it to the group that the country elected to act on our behalf, if the people we elected to act on our behalf believe it's critical enough they can as a group bring it public or as individuals bring it public.
I wouldn't use the word reporters but more of the word criminals. Should be:
I wonder how many criminals are using encryption on their Filesystems these days? If they are not, now is the time to start. A bit of a hassle, but maybe less hassle than spending 3 years in prison.
As using someone elses password to get to information that you aren't allowed access to is a criminal act, and that is what will get you the three years in prison. Possible concern over source privacy, etc for reporters won't get you in prison for three years and is a totaly different statement than what you said.
You can thank the lovely dvd licensors for that, they are contractularly bound to now allow anything with macrovision output rez higher than 480p out. What one can do is run it through something else to remove the encoding and then you can uprez it to your hearts content.
If not... what's the key difference between the two?
When you care about throughput as well as capacity.
I think you seem to have forgotten history about the Clinton administration (I'll have to do a little guilt-by-association to her husband as she wasn't in office for parts, but I think it's reasonable). It's not a voter ploy, she actually believes this crap.
t heater_owner_pr_id_check.html0 40.html
1) COPA http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/
2) Pushed the theater owners organization to be aggressive on people under 18 seeing "R" movies: http://www.libertarianrock.com/topics/censorship/
3) Called for regulation of video games http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/14/news_6129
4) Today's stuff
5) Past history with Tipper Gore
Nope, not being politically biased; but going more on facts. On the campaign trail kerry was claiming responsibility for it, that's the big reason. Heck even factcheck.org attributes it to Kerry and must be playing partisan politics as well since they don't mention anybody else.
http://www.factcheck.org/article246.html
"The ad says Kerry "was fighting for legislation to cut off terrorist money laundering before 9/11." And in fact, a section of a Kerry bill on money-laundering was virtually copied into the PATRIOT Act and praised by Bush administration officials."
Maybe the sooner you realize that both sides are dicks the better for you, because it would appear that you might just be a zealot that can't let anybody on your "side" have a complaint against them. Look into Kerry's history he's got some serious privacy issues in his closet...