Not really. Software generally provides value by making people more productive and people are often willing to pay for that productivity, which gives developers an opportunity to make money. If the people can get the software for free, the benefits of the increased productivity do not just disappear, the user gets to keep the benefits.
Calling Apple's compiler work a contribution for GCC is a rather entertaining way of characterizing it (much of the genesis of LLVM was GNU ideological resistance to certain optimization strategies).
Not entirely, there is something interesting about the much faster adoption of new versions of Firefox (well, the apparent adoption of newer versions among users of older versions...).
Well, yes, if your goal is to intercept drugs it is some sort of accomplishment, if your goal is to actually reduce the availability of drugs, it is meaningless.
Short of pushing AIG through bankruptcy, he didn't have the legal authority to force the debtors to take less than 100%, and a bankruptcy would not have gone well:
And it is likely that there were other options, the question is really whether any of them are better, and how close Bernanke came to selecting the option that best served the American people (my view is that they did a decent job, unwinding the insurance side of AIG would likely have been far costlier for the government, if it was even possible at all).
It isn't even clear that they measured the trivial stuff, they just took a guess (If Facebook cared to, they could probably come up with a slightly better estimate of their PHP overhead).
It's likely that they could have pushed the haircut issue, but the banks that got the money were not the ones that would lose on the insurance contracts (for instance, Goldman only stood to lose $14 billion if AIG completely exploded, AIG's customers stood to lose hundreds of billions, so the government would have been depending on the generosity of the creditors (if they were willing negotiators), or doing even more damage to contract law (if they were unwilling)).
Insurance businesses are regulated in such a way that they are not supposed to go bankrupt, AIG managed to avoid those regulations and become bankrupt (but the government chose to dump money in rather than attempting to resolve it through the traditional process).
I'm not talking about AIG defaulting on CDSs, I'm talking about there not being enough money under the corporate umbrella to resolve the CDSs and still honor their insurance and reinsurance contracts.
Why would they buy obsolete factories? Look at Hyundai, people see them as a 'cheap' brand, but part of the reason their cars cost less is that they are welded together by robots, robots that do it faster, with tighter tolerances, than a human.
The great majority of the wealth of the United States (production) is consumed by 'poor' people. There are a few hundred trillion dollars of standing wealth in the world (that's including things like houses, which are actually owned and used along a rather egalitarian distribution), several times that has been consumed in the U.S. alone over the last 40 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The original films aren't all that good. They are enjoyable and have some outstanding moments, but they aren't 'of a caliber'.
Yeah, fine. I would say that I am often a killjoy (perhaps that isn't for the better, but I think it is a fair statement).
The two best techniques are not worrying about it and mockery.
That's not fair, at least listen to someone smart enough not to stand on the thing when they try to make a call.
Far simpler to just continue calling it Oklahoma State.
Why bother renaming it? Even if your silly assertion is true, he is scheduled to die sometime soon (for various definitions of soon).
Not really. Software generally provides value by making people more productive and people are often willing to pay for that productivity, which gives developers an opportunity to make money. If the people can get the software for free, the benefits of the increased productivity do not just disappear, the user gets to keep the benefits.
Calling Apple's compiler work a contribution for GCC is a rather entertaining way of characterizing it (much of the genesis of LLVM was GNU ideological resistance to certain optimization strategies).
It is strikingly similar to the Apache 2.0 license (and some parts look like GPL2).
The war on drugs is a multifaceted failure.
Or you could use 'technology' to serve different browsers different versions of the site.
Not entirely, there is something interesting about the much faster adoption of new versions of Firefox (well, the apparent adoption of newer versions among users of older versions...).
Well, yes, if your goal is to intercept drugs it is some sort of accomplishment, if your goal is to actually reduce the availability of drugs, it is meaningless.
Of course it is feasible, as long as you don't care how much it costs.
Intercepting 20 or 30 percent of covert drug shipments is essentially worthless, so it is kind of hard to justify any cost to do so.
We should call them Hank.
Try to think of the ocean as being larger.
I'm sure you could find something that was equally phallic, but of a more convenient size.
Short of pushing AIG through bankruptcy, he didn't have the legal authority to force the debtors to take less than 100%, and a bankruptcy would not have gone well:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/another-view-imagining-an-aig-bankruptcy/
(That article is speculation, but it is more qualified speculation than I can make)
They pretty much did nationalize AIG.
And it is likely that there were other options, the question is really whether any of them are better, and how close Bernanke came to selecting the option that best served the American people (my view is that they did a decent job, unwinding the insurance side of AIG would likely have been far costlier for the government, if it was even possible at all).
It isn't even clear that they measured the trivial stuff, they just took a guess (If Facebook cared to, they could probably come up with a slightly better estimate of their PHP overhead).
It's likely that they could have pushed the haircut issue, but the banks that got the money were not the ones that would lose on the insurance contracts (for instance, Goldman only stood to lose $14 billion if AIG completely exploded, AIG's customers stood to lose hundreds of billions, so the government would have been depending on the generosity of the creditors (if they were willing negotiators), or doing even more damage to contract law (if they were unwilling)).
Insurance businesses are regulated in such a way that they are not supposed to go bankrupt, AIG managed to avoid those regulations and become bankrupt (but the government chose to dump money in rather than attempting to resolve it through the traditional process).
I'm not talking about AIG defaulting on CDSs, I'm talking about there not being enough money under the corporate umbrella to resolve the CDSs and still honor their insurance and reinsurance contracts.
Why would they buy obsolete factories? Look at Hyundai, people see them as a 'cheap' brand, but part of the reason their cars cost less is that they are welded together by robots, robots that do it faster, with tighter tolerances, than a human.
The great majority of the wealth of the United States (production) is consumed by 'poor' people. There are a few hundred trillion dollars of standing wealth in the world (that's including things like houses, which are actually owned and used along a rather egalitarian distribution), several times that has been consumed in the U.S. alone over the last 40 years.