The current BB userbase are people who work for companies that can't figure out how to transition. The number who want Blackberry hardware and to run Android software is low because the Q10 and Z10 both ran Android software. And of course there were quickly after the Q10 and Z10 came out Androids for it I've never met a single end user for those.
So I doubt there is any real constituency. There may be enough people to keep a QWERTY Android alive but that's a different proposition.
All they are are rational cost/benefit tradeoffs for the politicians involved, which involves pulling the wool over the eyes of naive and uninformed voters like you.
I'm going to stop here. There is no conspiracy. The positions that people hold in polls are the positions they hold after weighing various factors. You may disagree with them, but considering your position "fact" while there's is "naive" and "uninformed" shows you aren't listening very carefully. Our system works by various people presenting evidence and building policy consensus. There is not some vague position regarding white collar crime but over a century of opposition with some particulars heavily debated and decades of opposition to banks facilitating it. The drug war has a somewhat shorter but even more intense level of public scrutiny.
People are not uninformed, they disagree. And until you can accept that, you aren't going to be able to see why they disagree. Believing that politicians have magic powers to dominate the conscience "pull the wool" is nonsense. Politicians attempt to influence public opinion all the time, sometimes they can have moderate effect but mostly the flow of policy runs the other way -- the society broadly agrees on positions and then elects politicians who agree with them.
Yes, and you are on the wrong side of it.
I haven't anywhere in this thread told you where I stand on the question. You asked a why question then wanted to start a debate. You may want to consider that you believe others to be uninformed because you don't listen.
Why stop with reporting money transactions? We could find even more criminals if we forced everybody to wear GPS systems and recorded all phone conversations! Why not do that as well?
There are tradeoffs between freedom and crime prevention. Money tracking has a moderate impact on freedom in exchange for a tremendous impact on crime prevention: particularly white collar crime, terrorism and drugs. 24x7 surveillance of everyone would likely have an even greater impact on crime but the impact on freedom would be too large. Society weighs the plusses and minus and makes choices. Same way most choices are made, you weigh the costs and the benefits.
Hastert has not been accused of, let alone convicted of, any other crime.
Hastert has been accused of sexual abuse. I think it is a BS charge but you were making a much more general comment before about why money laundering laws exist.
Fact is that these investigative techniques represent an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of law-abiding citizens.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. You want to convince people of that opinion you are going to need to acknowledge the downsides with respect to white collar crime enforcement and come up with alternatives to cover the costs.
1) The structure especially the cash is questionable 2) Hastert is being very cautious 3) He lied to the FBI when asked about it 4) There are rumors of sex that are picking up details
Obviously we don't know all the facts but the speculation ain't based on nothing.
Oh. The justification is that criminal money is worth less than legitimate money.
For example lets assume X runs a chop shop. What are the options:
a1) He runs a garage that installs stolen parts into cars. He has lots of expenses in terms of finding customers. He also only takes cash for repairs. So looking at customer's cash withdrawals often creates customers that can testify to the types of repairs they purchased.
a2) He takes checks in which case their is going to be a discrepancy between parts installed and parts purchased.
b1) He sells parts to dealers for cash. In which case catching the other garages is how you bust the chop shop.
b2) He sells parts to dealers for checks. In which case there is a discrepancy between parts sold and parts bought.
etc...
"Follow the money" is how the cops bust white collar criminals.
I'm addressing "is" not "should". Being able to ask is that's the anti-laundering law. Look up on this tread and you'll find lots of people claiming there wasn't an objection.
Its pretty easy the bank asks question, you just answer. We aren't talking millions here. You run something like a cash restaurant that explains cash deposits.
Smal deposits I suspect would be structuring since the point of the small deposits is to avoid detection of a criminal activity. A blackmailer asking for small amounts wouldn't be though since he could always break the deposits up.
Exactly. Paying the blackmailers is not a crime. Lying to the FBI about being blackmailed is a crime. The above is an argument that Hastert was engaged in money laundering not obstruction of justice.
A cash business that does frequent deposits simply reports they have frequent cash receipts. That's not structuring and is almost never considered structuring.
As for the rest what blocks almost never from never, the government sometimes screws up.
The mob ran "roughshod" over the land because the government and the people at the time were often pro-organized crime. We have a much more representative government now as our primary solution. The breakup of organized crime happened much later than Capone, mostly in post WWII America.
Hastert was engaged in organized crime. As for what you want and the motivation of/.ers you simply disagree with the majority of/.ers opposed to this.
There is nothing illegal about withdrawing a large amount of cash to pay a blackmailer. It was the "more difficult to evade" parts that got him Hastert trouble.
First off he wasn't engaged in money laundering, the blackmailer might have been but Hastert was not. I suspect most/.ers don't want laws against money laundering and don't want the reporting requirements. You may disagree, I may disagree, but you are assuming too much in assuming the people here want roughly the same law and just disagree on means.
The enhancements on the patriot act that made structuring a crime were designed to prevent money laundering associated with terrorism. There is nothing illegal about paying blackmailers. That was not not exactly the kind of crime this was designed to deal nor was money laundering in general what this was designed to deal with.
Why do you consider Rust to be a scripting language: compiled, no garbage collection... ? I'd consider it more a competitor / modern update to C or Forth than Perl or Ruby. So I'm curious where you are coming from on this.
I don't know about this idea that no one cares. Perl6 introduces a lot of interesting concepts and techniques, it is very advanced. Perl today is much smaller than Perl was when Perl6 was announced but still larger than Perl was during the days of Perl 4. I don't know whether Perl will make a comeback or remain influential. But I certainly believe either is possible. The ideas in Perl6 have already influenced mixed paradigm languages like Scala.
As for your example of C++ and C I think your history is off. C was more tightly tied to Unix culture when C++ arrived. C++ became a default for application windowing environment like Mac and Windows. At the same time, C became standard for systems programming. While there is some overlap in problem domain C and C++ rarely competed.
Java conversely was solving the cross platform compatibility problem and a desire not to port. It certainly did compete with C++ but competed by offering a feature that C++ simply didn't offer at all.
There are a couple of problems with your theory, though it could play out that way. Right now the smaller vendors are often more efficient than the larger ones. Smaller players can be more nimble.
Second the larger players all have vastly different models. Just to pick a few examples of the bigger players AWS -- Generic low quality server experience offered cheaply. Walmart Sungard -- Highly custom environments quality management lots of value added labor Verizon (was Terremark) -- Moderately custom environments, mix of high performance cloud IaaS and colo. Some value added services with strong partner service model. Oracle -- Unified cloud stack offering IaaS plus advanced management especially knowledge of Oracle applications Azure -- IaaS with Microsoft based PaaS. Good pricing on SQL Server.
How do those consolidate? I think we are looking at a situation more like clothing where stores are genuinely different fulfilling niches for various customers.
The crossover between tricky to move is much lower than the crossover for better to run your own datacenter. Not necessarily the case though for better to run your own cloud out of someone else's colo or better to jointly administer a cloud with a colo provider. So this can happen. The cost of multiple good quality data centers is very very high compared to the cost of getting data out of one.
As far as GP's post. He's wrong. First off clouds are designed to scale so adding another copy of parts of the data for replication is not hard. Second you can do crossover networking from one data center to another if you need to move and the cost of using the cloud provider's bandwidth is too high. Also there are devices that can be physically connected to the racks and then trucked (think backup drive moving physically but 20-100x scale). Mainly a data move is the sort of thing an agent can coordinate easily.
This is demand driven investment. How could that be a bubble? The bubble can happen later when cloud investment starts to outpace customer demand or even starts to generate its own cross over demand. But right now this is not a bubble this is a success.
Slashdot Mirror
The current BB userbase are people who work for companies that can't figure out how to transition. The number who want Blackberry hardware and to run Android software is low because the Q10 and Z10 both ran Android software. And of course there were quickly after the Q10 and Z10 came out Androids for it I've never met a single end user for those.
So I doubt there is any real constituency. There may be enough people to keep a QWERTY Android alive but that's a different proposition.
There are all sorts of sites out there that sell individual articles like Forrestor? How many have you bought this year?
Or you move content sites as well to the CDNs. No reason that can't happen. Then each CDN has a range of ad content they support.
Apple does $231.5b in revenue. Paid apps revenue is $5.37b. So a couple percent. Advertising BTW is much smaller at $94.5m
I'm going to stop here. There is no conspiracy. The positions that people hold in polls are the positions they hold after weighing various factors. You may disagree with them, but considering your position "fact" while there's is "naive" and "uninformed" shows you aren't listening very carefully. Our system works by various people presenting evidence and building policy consensus. There is not some vague position regarding white collar crime but over a century of opposition with some particulars heavily debated and decades of opposition to banks facilitating it. The drug war has a somewhat shorter but even more intense level of public scrutiny.
People are not uninformed, they disagree. And until you can accept that, you aren't going to be able to see why they disagree. Believing that politicians have magic powers to dominate the conscience "pull the wool" is nonsense. Politicians attempt to influence public opinion all the time, sometimes they can have moderate effect but mostly the flow of policy runs the other way -- the society broadly agrees on positions and then elects politicians who agree with them.
I haven't anywhere in this thread told you where I stand on the question. You asked a why question then wanted to start a debate. You may want to consider that you believe others to be uninformed because you don't listen.
There are tradeoffs between freedom and crime prevention. Money tracking has a moderate impact on freedom in exchange for a tremendous impact on crime prevention: particularly white collar crime, terrorism and drugs. 24x7 surveillance of everyone would likely have an even greater impact on crime but the impact on freedom would be too large. Society weighs the plusses and minus and makes choices. Same way most choices are made, you weigh the costs and the benefits.
Hastert has been accused of sexual abuse. I think it is a BS charge but you were making a much more general comment before about why money laundering laws exist.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. You want to convince people of that opinion you are going to need to acknowledge the downsides with respect to white collar crime enforcement and come up with alternatives to cover the costs.
1) The structure especially the cash is questionable
2) Hastert is being very cautious
3) He lied to the FBI when asked about it
4) There are rumors of sex that are picking up details
Obviously we don't know all the facts but the speculation ain't based on nothing.
Oh. The justification is that criminal money is worth less than legitimate money.
For example lets assume X runs a chop shop. What are the options:
a1) He runs a garage that installs stolen parts into cars. He has lots of expenses in terms of finding customers. He also only takes cash for repairs. So looking at customer's cash withdrawals often creates customers that can testify to the types of repairs they purchased.
a2) He takes checks in which case their is going to be a discrepancy between parts installed and parts purchased.
b1) He sells parts to dealers for cash. In which case catching the other garages is how you bust the chop shop.
b2) He sells parts to dealers for checks. In which case there is a discrepancy between parts sold and parts bought.
etc...
"Follow the money" is how the cops bust white collar criminals.
I'm addressing "is" not "should". Being able to ask is that's the anti-laundering law. Look up on this tread and you'll find lots of people claiming there wasn't an objection.
I don't think any federal agency gets to keep seized money for the office. I believe all seizures from the DOJ go to a single fund for example.
Its pretty easy the bank asks question, you just answer. We aren't talking millions here. You run something like a cash restaurant that explains cash deposits.
Smal deposits I suspect would be structuring since the point of the small deposits is to avoid detection of a criminal activity. A blackmailer asking for small amounts wouldn't be though since he could always break the deposits up.
Sorry that should have read:
Hastert wasn't engaged in organized crime.
Exactly. Paying the blackmailers is not a crime. Lying to the FBI about being blackmailed is a crime. The above is an argument that Hastert was engaged in money laundering not obstruction of justice.
A cash business that does frequent deposits simply reports they have frequent cash receipts. That's not structuring and is almost never considered structuring.
As for the rest what blocks almost never from never, the government sometimes screws up.
The mob ran "roughshod" over the land because the government and the people at the time were often pro-organized crime. We have a much more representative government now as our primary solution. The breakup of organized crime happened much later than Capone, mostly in post WWII America.
Hastert was engaged in organized crime. As for what you want and the motivation of /.ers you simply disagree with the majority of /.ers opposed to this.
The claim was that the laws against structuring were designed to prevent what Hastert was doing. The lying part is a separate issue.
There is nothing illegal about withdrawing a large amount of cash to pay a blackmailer. It was the "more difficult to evade" parts that got him Hastert trouble.
First off he wasn't engaged in money laundering, the blackmailer might have been but Hastert was not. I suspect most /.ers don't want laws against money laundering and don't want the reporting requirements. You may disagree, I may disagree, but you are assuming too much in assuming the people here want roughly the same law and just disagree on means.
The enhancements on the patriot act that made structuring a crime were designed to prevent money laundering associated with terrorism. There is nothing illegal about paying blackmailers. That was not not exactly the kind of crime this was designed to deal nor was money laundering in general what this was designed to deal with.
@Bill
Why do you consider Rust to be a scripting language: compiled, no garbage collection... ? I'd consider it more a competitor / modern update to C or Forth than Perl or Ruby. So I'm curious where you are coming from on this.
I don't know about this idea that no one cares. Perl6 introduces a lot of interesting concepts and techniques, it is very advanced. Perl today is much smaller than Perl was when Perl6 was announced but still larger than Perl was during the days of Perl 4. I don't know whether Perl will make a comeback or remain influential. But I certainly believe either is possible. The ideas in Perl6 have already influenced mixed paradigm languages like Scala.
As for your example of C++ and C I think your history is off. C was more tightly tied to Unix culture when C++ arrived. C++ became a default for application windowing environment like Mac and Windows. At the same time, C became standard for systems programming. While there is some overlap in problem domain C and C++ rarely competed.
Java conversely was solving the cross platform compatibility problem and a desire not to port. It certainly did compete with C++ but competed by offering a feature that C++ simply didn't offer at all.
There are a couple of problems with your theory, though it could play out that way. Right now the smaller vendors are often more efficient than the larger ones. Smaller players can be more nimble.
Second the larger players all have vastly different models. Just to pick a few examples of the bigger players
AWS -- Generic low quality server experience offered cheaply. Walmart
Sungard -- Highly custom environments quality management lots of value added labor
Verizon (was Terremark) -- Moderately custom environments, mix of high performance cloud IaaS and colo. Some value added services with strong partner service model.
Oracle -- Unified cloud stack offering IaaS plus advanced management especially knowledge of Oracle applications
Azure -- IaaS with Microsoft based PaaS. Good pricing on SQL Server.
How do those consolidate? I think we are looking at a situation more like clothing where stores are genuinely different fulfilling niches for various customers.
The crossover between tricky to move is much lower than the crossover for better to run your own datacenter. Not necessarily the case though for better to run your own cloud out of someone else's colo or better to jointly administer a cloud with a colo provider. So this can happen. The cost of multiple good quality data centers is very very high compared to the cost of getting data out of one.
As far as GP's post. He's wrong. First off clouds are designed to scale so adding another copy of parts of the data for replication is not hard. Second you can do crossover networking from one data center to another if you need to move and the cost of using the cloud provider's bandwidth is too high. Also there are devices that can be physically connected to the racks and then trucked (think backup drive moving physically but 20-100x scale). Mainly a data move is the sort of thing an agent can coordinate easily.
This is demand driven investment. How could that be a bubble? The bubble can happen later when cloud investment starts to outpace customer demand or even starts to generate its own cross over demand. But right now this is not a bubble this is a success.