We empathize with that which we perceive to be like us. People who look and act like me from my tribe? The halest, heartiest of the bunch, worthy of respect and honor. People who don't look like me but act like me... still, hearty mates. Animals which have emotions like me? Puppies, dogs, cats? Can't hurt them. Chickens? Well... they seem to be pretty different. They're okay to eat. Cows. Wow they're dumb and utterly unlike me - they're okay to kill. Fish? Utterly unlike me. No question, okay to kill. Octopi... wait, you're telling me they're like me? Hmmm, let me consider this.
-> Winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2010, The Inside Job chronicles the fraud behavior which led to the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession.
Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.
This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence).
Another case in point: Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, and former Treasury Secretary who crafted the bailouts. His undergraduate major? English.
End the revolving door. And firewall regulators from politicians.
Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.
This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence). Obfuscation has been the shield behind which Wall Street hid for many years during the 2000s. There are plenty of sharp people who can work as regulators. It is a different mindset from the money-at-any-cost Wall Street executive and they don't understand it. But it's there.
End the revolving door. With it, regulation becomes ineffectual. A farce.
Additionally, regulators need to be firewalled against politicians' retribution. The big donors give big money to politicians. They don't complain to the regulator, they complain to the politicians who defund and reassign departments pursuing the donor.
1) On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that. The ISP won't guarantee that speed, except in bursts. Kind of like how a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really 1.5 x 3.5. Conflicts arise when people try to use the full connection bandwidth in a sustained manner.
2) On the other hand, lack of net neutrality would open the floodgates for corporations to manipulate traffic. To create slow and fast lanes, to favor content, to create yet another pricing tier for American consumers who already pay among the highest prices in the world for high speed internet.
Based on the fact the government is already under regulatory capture (head of FCC is a telecom executive, head of FDA is a Monsanto executive, 2nd in command at the central bank is a Citigroup executive, etc, etc), allowing net neutrality to be defeated will result in a bad outcome for consumers.
Net neutrality is not perfect, but it's much better than ceding more control to cable companies.
The less you understand the company, the more attractive it is. I suspect the opacity of its operations are a draw.
I remember the tech bubble: "Two guys with a server and a dream" could make millions (on paper). If they cashed out quickly enough, they could turn it into currency.
I track my calories quite closely. Have for a few years now. Late last year, I went off meds - steroid-based - that I'd taken for decades for a chronic condition which had gone away. In the course of about 2 months, I gained ten pounds without changing my caloric intake. Freaked me out because I'd worked so hard to lose the weight.
That strongly suggested to me that there are in fact, other factors at play than just calorie balance. Calorie balance is a significant component but there seem to be other significant factors at play as well.
Also, it seems to me that making rulings in order to achieve desired social outcomes rather than based on reasonable interpretations of the law undermines the rule of law.
If certain actions criminalize a religion without just cause (i.e. the criminalized set of acts is representative of a harmless behavior, or a set of non-criminal acts that only happen under this religion in this way)
It seems to me that if a reasonable interpretation of a law leads to negative unintended consequences, it then becomes the legislative branch's duty to rectify it, not the judicial branch's. Creating an incoherent ruling merely to achieve a desired social outcome severely undercuts the separation of powers, it seems to me.
Regardless of the clever implementation, Aereo behaved like a subscription cable service. How it collected and stored programming was not relevant to this.
From the article: "Launched a year ago in New York and then extended to 10 other U.S. cities, it allows customers to watch over-the-air TV programs on a smartphone, tablet, or computer for as little as $8 a month."
Here's how Aereo [works | worked]. Redirecting a free over-the-air product over the web is a clever idea. It would seem to me that it would give advertisers a broader reach.
I don't think this tech is going to go away. This ruling merely consolidates the power of the existing media companies over the broadcast medium. Which, in my opinion, is regrettable. They already have too much power IMO.
It seems to me that judges should be ruling based on the law, not perceived ancillary social influences. That's why we have three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative makes the law, and judicial merely determines if actions are legal or not legal? Quaint, no?
So - I really like the idea of the PAC. I want to contribute. BUT, I don't want to undermine my other causes.
Question: Will this PAC be promoting both liberal and conservative politicians who advocate this one very important issue? The mayday.us website says 5 races will be targeted. What races and why those particular races?
Example: Politician A is "wrong" on every issue but campaign finance reform. Politician B is "right" on every issue but wrong on campaign finance reform.
How can someone like me - who believes the current campaign finance system is a rot at the heart of our democracy, but also has to balance this issue with other important issues - how can my concerns be assuaged?
Politicians shake down big donors. Big donors try to influence politicians. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's lost are the interests of the populace. Granted, those interests can be varied, in direct conflict and not monolithic. But the politician's incentives - while always self centered of course, they're only people - should be more aligned with the public interest rather than merely with the interest of a few large donors.
I discovered the big problem in American business today: Executives can make big money by running a company aground. Enough money so that their grandchildren won't have to work.
Greenspan thought companies would self regulate. His mistake was subtle: He assumed that the leadership of the company needed the company to be healthy in order for the executives to prosper. But a new pattern emerged: executives could engage in behavior which could yield a multiple-lifetime supply of wealth by engaging in practices which ultimately destroyed the company.
And that's what happened to the financial sector in the US. And doubtless other companies which yield this particular prize.
I don't know what the common underlying reason is but this is the common symptom - being able to make the Big Score by running a company aground.
Summary - this issue got before Congress only when the NAR was bitten by it. I don't the issue is dead, not by a long shot. The NAR has deep connections in government and unless they somehow get the issue to go away for them personally, anti-patent troll legislation is likely to come back. Perhaps more quietly next time.
You can walk away for any reason and they can let you go for almost any reason. Being fired/laid off is a bitter pill... but impulse control keeps you out of jail. And it's the other side of being able to walk away at any time.
"Natural Monopolies" are an economic concept. These are industries in which the barriers to entry are so high that new competitors are blocked from entering. Infrastructure is commonly cited - power lines, power stations, the last mile infrastructure. The same goes for most infrastructure - telephone lines, cable lines, oil and gas pipelines, railroads.
So, there's no way to let customers vote with their feet in natural monopolies. There are no competitors. Hence the need for regulation to avoid the problem of monopolies, which is "monopoly pricing."
Say there's a pesky blog that keeps posting pointed, critical commentary at NBC-Comcast or at a cause they support. If you allow prioritizing of data, shockingly, that site's traffic might receive the lowest priority possible, or intermittent blockage. The Internet is the last bastion of the free flow of ideas. That should be protected, strongly. Because if there's an opportunity to abuse the privilege of prioritizing data, in order to increase profit or stifle dissenting voices, it most assuredly will be abused.
Also: No maintenance for Excel files other than backing them up, i.e. copying them to thumb drives or DVDs. Access files get corrupted and need to be recovered. Servers have to be rebooted and client-server databases have to be backed up.
Slashdot Mirror
They benefit in at least three ways:
1) Direct contributions.
2) The Revolving Door
3) Trading on insider information.
There are many other ways I'm sure, smaller and more subtle. But these are the big ones AFAIK.
We empathize with that which we perceive to be like us. People who look and act like me from my tribe? The halest, heartiest of the bunch, worthy of respect and honor. People who don't look like me but act like me... still, hearty mates. Animals which have emotions like me? Puppies, dogs, cats? Can't hurt them. Chickens? Well... they seem to be pretty different. They're okay to eat. Cows. Wow they're dumb and utterly unlike me - they're okay to kill. Fish? Utterly unlike me. No question, okay to kill. Octopi... wait, you're telling me they're like me? Hmmm, let me consider this.
Absolutely false.
-> In America there have been just a handful of criminal charges brought against senior executives of banks, and even fewer successful convictions. This is very different from the response of prosecutors in earlier banking crises, such as the meltdown of Savings & Loans institutions in America in the 1980s. In that case more than 1,000 bankers were convicted for their misdeeds.
-> William K. Black [senior regulator who pursued offenders during the savings and loan crisis] tells Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL that the tool at the very center of mortgage collapse, creating triple-A rated bonds out of "liars' loans" — loans issued without verifying income, assets or employment — was a fraud, and the banks knew it. And while there is no law against liars' loans, Black points out that there are, "many laws against fraud, and liars' loans are fraudulent. [...] They involve deceit, which is the essence of fraud. "
-> Winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2010, The Inside Job chronicles the fraud behavior which led to the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession.
The key word is "control fraud."
Another case in point: Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, and former Treasury Secretary who crafted the bailouts. His undergraduate major? English.
End the revolving door. And firewall regulators from politicians.
This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence). Obfuscation has been the shield behind which Wall Street hid for many years during the 2000s. There are plenty of sharp people who can work as regulators. It is a different mindset from the money-at-any-cost Wall Street executive and they don't understand it. But it's there.
End the revolving door. With it, regulation becomes ineffectual. A farce.
Additionally, regulators need to be firewalled against politicians' retribution. The big donors give big money to politicians. They don't complain to the regulator, they complain to the politicians who defund and reassign departments pursuing the donor.
Example attacks are listed on Red Hat's security blog.
1) On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that. The ISP won't guarantee that speed, except in bursts. Kind of like how a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really 1.5 x 3.5. Conflicts arise when people try to use the full connection bandwidth in a sustained manner.
2) On the other hand, lack of net neutrality would open the floodgates for corporations to manipulate traffic. To create slow and fast lanes, to favor content, to create yet another pricing tier for American consumers who already pay among the highest prices in the world for high speed internet.
Based on the fact the government is already under regulatory capture (head of FCC is a telecom executive, head of FDA is a Monsanto executive, 2nd in command at the central bank is a Citigroup executive, etc, etc), allowing net neutrality to be defeated will result in a bad outcome for consumers.
Net neutrality is not perfect, but it's much better than ceding more control to cable companies.
The less you understand the company, the more attractive it is. I suspect the opacity of its operations are a draw.
I remember the tech bubble: "Two guys with a server and a dream" could make millions (on paper). If they cashed out quickly enough, they could turn it into currency.
As "crony capitalism" grows, the oligarchy is once again ascendant.
Q.E.D.
I track my calories quite closely. Have for a few years now. Late last year, I went off meds - steroid-based - that I'd taken for decades for a chronic condition which had gone away. In the course of about 2 months, I gained ten pounds without changing my caloric intake. Freaked me out because I'd worked so hard to lose the weight.
That strongly suggested to me that there are in fact, other factors at play than just calorie balance. Calorie balance is a significant component but there seem to be other significant factors at play as well.
When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a petri dish," keep in mind: So does a handgun.
Also, it seems to me that making rulings in order to achieve desired social outcomes rather than based on reasonable interpretations of the law undermines the rule of law.
It seems to me that if a reasonable interpretation of a law leads to negative unintended consequences, it then becomes the legislative branch's duty to rectify it, not the judicial branch's. Creating an incoherent ruling merely to achieve a desired social outcome severely undercuts the separation of powers, it seems to me.
Appearances can deceive: The elephant bird may have looked like an ostrich but it's not related to ostriches. It's actually related to kiwis.
From the article: "Launched a year ago in New York and then extended to 10 other U.S. cities, it allows customers to watch over-the-air TV programs on a smartphone, tablet, or computer for as little as $8 a month."
Here's how Aereo [works | worked]. Redirecting a free over-the-air product over the web is a clever idea. It would seem to me that it would give advertisers a broader reach.
I don't think this tech is going to go away. This ruling merely consolidates the power of the existing media companies over the broadcast medium. Which, in my opinion, is regrettable. They already have too much power IMO.
He's not: "As Stephen Breyer, one of the Supreme Court justices, said in this week’s hearing, “What disturbs me is I don’t understand what the decision for you or against you is going to do to all kinds of other technologies.”
It seems to me that judges should be ruling based on the law, not perceived ancillary social influences. That's why we have three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative makes the law, and judicial merely determines if actions are legal or not legal? Quaint, no?
We imposed term limits to prevent an imperial presidency.
We did nothing to limit an imperial congress.
So - I really like the idea of the PAC. I want to contribute. BUT, I don't want to undermine my other causes.
Question: Will this PAC be promoting both liberal and conservative politicians who advocate this one very important issue? The mayday.us website says 5 races will be targeted. What races and why those particular races?
Example:
Politician A is "wrong" on every issue but campaign finance reform.
Politician B is "right" on every issue but wrong on campaign finance reform.
How can someone like me - who believes the current campaign finance system is a rot at the heart of our democracy, but also has to balance this issue with other important issues - how can my concerns be assuaged?
It is amazing to me that politicians can take money from people and businesses with the expectation of favors in return.
This is perfectly legal. It is nothing but legalized bribery.
From a recent article on a court case which further loosened campaign finance restrictions: "For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks,” he said. “For them, it’s not about giving money, it’s about building a relationship. You’re not going to get any face time, they’re not going to hear your story.” Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate — legal, “completely non-corrupting gratitude,” Backer hastened to note."
Politicians shake down big donors. Big donors try to influence politicians. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's lost are the interests of the populace. Granted, those interests can be varied, in direct conflict and not monolithic. But the politician's incentives - while always self centered of course, they're only people - should be more aligned with the public interest rather than merely with the interest of a few large donors.
I discovered the big problem in American business today: Executives can make big money by running a company aground. Enough money so that their grandchildren won't have to work.
Greenspan thought companies would self regulate. His mistake was subtle: He assumed that the leadership of the company needed the company to be healthy in order for the executives to prosper. But a new pattern emerged: executives could engage in behavior which could yield a multiple-lifetime supply of wealth by engaging in practices which ultimately destroyed the company.
And that's what happened to the financial sector in the US. And doubtless other companies which yield this particular prize.
I don't know what the common underlying reason is but this is the common symptom - being able to make the Big Score by running a company aground.
It started last summer, when patent trolls started messing with one of the biggest political donors of all time - the National Association of Realtors.
If you take a look at Patrick Leahy's donors, you can see real estate is down the list.
Summary - this issue got before Congress only when the NAR was bitten by it. I don't the issue is dead, not by a long shot. The NAR has deep connections in government and unless they somehow get the issue to go away for them personally, anti-patent troll legislation is likely to come back. Perhaps more quietly next time.
You can walk away for any reason and they can let you go for almost any reason. Being fired/laid off is a bitter pill... but impulse control keeps you out of jail. And it's the other side of being able to walk away at any time.
"Natural Monopolies" are an economic concept. These are industries in which the barriers to entry are so high that new competitors are blocked from entering. Infrastructure is commonly cited - power lines, power stations, the last mile infrastructure. The same goes for most infrastructure - telephone lines, cable lines, oil and gas pipelines, railroads.
So, there's no way to let customers vote with their feet in natural monopolies. There are no competitors. Hence the need for regulation to avoid the problem of monopolies, which is "monopoly pricing."
Say there's a pesky blog that keeps posting pointed, critical commentary at NBC-Comcast or at a cause they support. If you allow prioritizing of data, shockingly, that site's traffic might receive the lowest priority possible, or intermittent blockage. The Internet is the last bastion of the free flow of ideas. That should be protected, strongly. Because if there's an opportunity to abuse the privilege of prioritizing data, in order to increase profit or stifle dissenting voices, it most assuredly will be abused.
Here is an informative 3 minute video highlighting some of the ways to abuse data prioritization.
Also: No maintenance for Excel files other than backing them up, i.e. copying them to thumb drives or DVDs. Access files get corrupted and need to be recovered. Servers have to be rebooted and client-server databases have to be backed up.