Whether you think they should have control or not, they can assert it with technological means (for example, by not supporting addons, or by only executing cryptographically signed scripts).
It wasn't a gift. It isn't clear that it was a good investment, but the vast majority of the TARP money was in exchange for interest in a company (Senior preferred shares and warrants, mostly).
Most of the money supply is imaginary, not paper. The Federal Reserve creates money buy buying debt (from banks, who now have the money that the Fed gave them); to destroy money, it sells that debt back to the banks (and most of the money pops out of existence, but not always all of it, due to interests rates changing over time). Not as pretty as a fire, but that's what happens.
The government received preferred shares and warrants for much of the "TARP" funds. They might not make a profit on those instruments (or they might...), but they are very far from a gift, and amount to partial nationalization.
That's essentially what is happening. The holders of AIGs debts are the real beneficiaries of the bailout. Instead of bankruptcy where they would fight for the scraps of the carcass, they are receiving 100% payoffs, some from the bailout dollars, and some from the ongoing liquidation of AIG assets.
Really, this all boils down to a physics problem. If we could see what would have actually happened had AIG been allowed to fail, we could either just let them fail, or point out how horribly terrible that world would be. As it is, we get to experience all this fun.
The real fun begins when someone makes a clear statement of where the billions went. As it is, AIG benefits from attention getting focused on a million here and a million there (it doesn't make the millions any less galling, but damn it, they are tiny problems compared to the rest of the money involved).
There might be some wiggle room between giving the voter the means to show how he voted and giving the voter the means to prove how he voted (the former lets the voter verify his vote but lie to an adversary, the latter prevents the voter from lying).
Some other guy already corrected you, but I love how your comment is phrased, as if the U.K. would storm in and start shooting you fuckers if you didn't do what the queen said.
Historical documents like the Magna Carta and the Constitution are wonderful statements, but they gain their power because the people give their assent, not by historical fiat. All political systems and documents share this trait.
The first step is to call it what it is -- undo "banks casually opening credit accounts based on fraudulent information".
Keeping magic secret numbers as private as possible helps, but there really isn't an individual can do to prevent it, so describing the individual as the victim is nonsense.
The card agreement provides safety for purchasers by limiting their exposure to $50 (and most of the companies wave that...). The card companies then use the huge numbers of people who use credit cards to, let's say, 'encourage' merchants to write down the costs of fraudulent transactions.
So people use it because it is convenient and not really all that risky, and merchants use it because (for most of them) not accepting credit cards would cost them far more than fraudulent transactions cost.
There has to be some way to add certificates. The only special thing about the default set of certificates is that the browser makers decided to include them; paranoia would suggest that they should be reviewed by each user, but convenience seems to win.
You are asserting that, on average, working Americans produce less than $1,000 of value a year. That's fine, you can think whatever you want, I'm just translating it into a real number.
I was pretty happy when my credit union switched away from a "you have to answer the security question" online servicer. Apparently, that interpretation of the rules is pretty common.
Slashdot Mirror
How does pointing out the problem of involving science help when (much of the time) it isn't scientists that are involving science?
Whether you think they should have control or not, they can assert it with technological means (for example, by not supporting addons, or by only executing cryptographically signed scripts).
Dude, we already blacklisted you, so it don't matter none.
I'm a Stone Cold Steve Austinist. We believe that the universe exists 'cause Stone Cold said so.
Is there some other low-rent, low-brow cable network (or entertainment company) trying to trade off of the SciFi name?
It wasn't a gift. It isn't clear that it was a good investment, but the vast majority of the TARP money was in exchange for interest in a company (Senior preferred shares and warrants, mostly).
Most of the money supply is imaginary, not paper. The Federal Reserve creates money buy buying debt (from banks, who now have the money that the Fed gave them); to destroy money, it sells that debt back to the banks (and most of the money pops out of existence, but not always all of it, due to interests rates changing over time). Not as pretty as a fire, but that's what happens.
Aruba? Jamaica?
The government received preferred shares and warrants for much of the "TARP" funds. They might not make a profit on those instruments (or they might...), but they are very far from a gift, and amount to partial nationalization.
Increasingly, yes. Of course, it really grows on cotton and flax plants.
That's essentially what is happening. The holders of AIGs debts are the real beneficiaries of the bailout. Instead of bankruptcy where they would fight for the scraps of the carcass, they are receiving 100% payoffs, some from the bailout dollars, and some from the ongoing liquidation of AIG assets.
Really, this all boils down to a physics problem. If we could see what would have actually happened had AIG been allowed to fail, we could either just let them fail, or point out how horribly terrible that world would be. As it is, we get to experience all this fun.
The real fun begins when someone makes a clear statement of where the billions went. As it is, AIG benefits from attention getting focused on a million here and a million there (it doesn't make the millions any less galling, but damn it, they are tiny problems compared to the rest of the money involved).
Just carefully define enemy.
Yep, prison doesn't count if there is no anal rape involved.
There might be some wiggle room between giving the voter the means to show how he voted and giving the voter the means to prove how he voted (the former lets the voter verify his vote but lie to an adversary, the latter prevents the voter from lying).
Or free will is just Solipsism with a nice wig and thick makeup.
Whole branches of philosophy are dedicated to uninteresting questions. Too bad 'but that's boring' isn't a more popular argument.
Some other guy already corrected you, but I love how your comment is phrased, as if the U.K. would storm in and start shooting you fuckers if you didn't do what the queen said.
Historical documents like the Magna Carta and the Constitution are wonderful statements, but they gain their power because the people give their assent, not by historical fiat. All political systems and documents share this trait.
The first step is to call it what it is -- undo "banks casually opening credit accounts based on fraudulent information".
Keeping magic secret numbers as private as possible helps, but there really isn't an individual can do to prevent it, so describing the individual as the victim is nonsense.
The card agreement provides safety for purchasers by limiting their exposure to $50 (and most of the companies wave that...). The card companies then use the huge numbers of people who use credit cards to, let's say, 'encourage' merchants to write down the costs of fraudulent transactions.
So people use it because it is convenient and not really all that risky, and merchants use it because (for most of them) not accepting credit cards would cost them far more than fraudulent transactions cost.
There has to be some way to add certificates. The only special thing about the default set of certificates is that the browser makers decided to include them; paranoia would suggest that they should be reviewed by each user, but convenience seems to win.
You are asserting that, on average, working Americans produce less than $1,000 of value a year. That's fine, you can think whatever you want, I'm just translating it into a real number.
I was pretty happy when my credit union switched away from a "you have to answer the security question" online servicer. Apparently, that interpretation of the rules is pretty common.
So import those certificates into your browser. Not convenient if you are on some other machine, but you are talking about a pretty esoteric use.
I don't see any reason for DNS providers to honor domain names containing that character. I suppose it isn't enough to hope that they do not.