I think at least one manufacturer will make it straightforward to run arbitrary code on their systems.
Given that Intel, AMD, Dell, IBM, etc are all participants in UEFI, I would be a little surprised if the spec was written in such a way that a single software vendor can force it to be used to their sole advantage.
3.6 had quite a few changes and 4.0 had more. 5 and 6 have not really changed things much (but the ui has gotten a little quicker and they use less memory than 4.0).
If you are securing communications that are important to a business or something, you can build your own certificate chain (meaning you can set it up so that hackers would need to break into a safe or whatever, not some internet connected computer), and so on.
There's plenty of food and other goods in the stores there poindexter.
You can't actually create production with debt, you can only encourage it (that is, consumption has to be backed by actual goods or it doesn't happen; that is tautological, not controversial). The encouraging comes in when you promise to pay more than $1 tomorrow for $1 today.
Right, because people with ~$20 million of equity in a company paying 5% annual dividends (or capital gains) are really gonna sweat that $100,000, and they actively run their businesses in such a sloppy manner that they are paying people less than they actually earn for the business. Sure.
The sane argument for arguing against a tax like this is that you think the private sector does a better job of investing in the economy than the government. Blathering about how some relatively small increase in the marginal rates of a few of the wealthiest people in the world is jobaggeddon is just ridiculous.
The nominal median household income has more than doubled since 1980. The inflation adjusted median household income is about the same, but slightly higher (objections to how inflation is calculated are pre-noted).
A definition of middle class that doesn't include the median household is silly. If you want to claim that incomes have been flat, you need to concede (some level of) inflation adjustment.
If you do it right and the economy grows just a little bit, it should simplify retirement planning (because the adjustments would generally be in favor of the taxpayer, at least if the taxpayer was someone that required a real plan in order to retire).
Present day deficits are ridiculous and I think the debt is too high, but the U.S. GPD over the post WW2 period has exceeded 300 trillion dollars, all the while the government has racked up a 20 trillion dollar (or so) debt (both of those numbers are calculated in a way that is hostile to my point, I don't want to argue the details of exactly what they should be).
So the debt is better described as "excessive and foolish" than it is described as "vast and disastrous".
The essence of the proposal is exactly a minimum tax rate on all income over $1 million. People earning most of that $1 million as ordinary income will generally already be paying more than that new minimum rate, it will mostly impact people that would currently pay long term cap gains rates.
It isn't going to be an income tax increase on every person that has an AGI of $1 million, it is going to be an income tax increase on people that earn more than $1 million and have such large capital gains that their effective tax rate is lower than people earning a typical salary.
If you figure that the increase in taxes will probably be something like 10% on earnings that are likely around 5% of invested capital, it isn't even particularly worth squealing about preferring private sector investment to government spending, the impact will be in the range of 0.5% of the capital invested by these people (arguments that a 1% disincentive would somehow stop someone from trying to earn millions of dollars aren't even worth addressing seriously).
All this does is subject people with 7 figure capital gains incomes to a slightly higher effective tax rate. It only dings a few tens of thousands of people. People that are already massively rich by any reasonable definition.
Was he having trouble breathing or something more serious like that? A simple check to see if he had something that would justify antibiotics would cost a few hundred dollars in an ER, not thousands.
If they interbred and the genes persist in the present day population, all it means is that the definition of human that excluded the 'other' species was wrong (or at least it calls the usefulness of that definition into question).
Anyway, it is a tautology that a species interbred with it's evolutionary predecessors.
I don't think it is that big a deal, unless you want to insist that there have been frequent prosecutions of breaking and entering that occurred due to silent changes to permission to enter.
That is, if the website fails to notify the user that their access has been terminated and fails to suspend the account/password, any resulting prosecution will look a tiny bit aggressive.
(go yell at Cornell if you think it is not an accurate reflection of the current U.S. code, I don't care)
Section 1030(e)(6) defines the term âoeexceeds authorized accessâ as used in the law. The amendment to the proposed bill changes the definition explicitly to exclude TOS violations as a sole basis for determining unauthorized access.
That's a pretty ridiculous accusation to level at intel.
Sure, Moore's law is one part prediction and one part self fulfilling prophecy, but the progress in computer performance (per watt, per dollar, etc.) over the last 40 years has been pretty nice.
If "technology increases" at a rate of 0.01% per year, it is increasing exponentially. At that rate, the consequences of 40 years of growth would barely be perceptible. After 1,000 years, things would seem to be changing a little.
Slashdot Mirror
I think at least one manufacturer will make it straightforward to run arbitrary code on their systems.
Given that Intel, AMD, Dell, IBM, etc are all participants in UEFI, I would be a little surprised if the spec was written in such a way that a single software vendor can force it to be used to their sole advantage.
3.6 had quite a few changes and 4.0 had more. 5 and 6 have not really changed things much (but the ui has gotten a little quicker and they use less memory than 4.0).
Many non-compliant devices call it a digital connection (rinky dink stuff like high end Canon dSLRs and such).
Those cables would not be compliant.
What are you using certificates to secure?
If you are just shopping, why worry about it?
If you are securing communications that are important to a business or something, you can build your own certificate chain (meaning you can set it up so that hackers would need to break into a safe or whatever, not some internet connected computer), and so on.
There's plenty of food and other goods in the stores there poindexter.
You can't actually create production with debt, you can only encourage it (that is, consumption has to be backed by actual goods or it doesn't happen; that is tautological, not controversial). The encouraging comes in when you promise to pay more than $1 tomorrow for $1 today.
Right, because people with ~$20 million of equity in a company paying 5% annual dividends (or capital gains) are really gonna sweat that $100,000, and they actively run their businesses in such a sloppy manner that they are paying people less than they actually earn for the business. Sure.
The sane argument for arguing against a tax like this is that you think the private sector does a better job of investing in the economy than the government. Blathering about how some relatively small increase in the marginal rates of a few of the wealthiest people in the world is jobaggeddon is just ridiculous.
The nominal median household income has more than doubled since 1980. The inflation adjusted median household income is about the same, but slightly higher (objections to how inflation is calculated are pre-noted).
A definition of middle class that doesn't include the median household is silly. If you want to claim that incomes have been flat, you need to concede (some level of) inflation adjustment.
The key provision being announced is a tax on investment income for people that have income of more than $1 million a year.
People that work hard for their millions should not see rate increase from the increase in the investment income tax rate.
If you do it right and the economy grows just a little bit, it should simplify retirement planning (because the adjustments would generally be in favor of the taxpayer, at least if the taxpayer was someone that required a real plan in order to retire).
Present day deficits are ridiculous and I think the debt is too high, but the U.S. GPD over the post WW2 period has exceeded 300 trillion dollars, all the while the government has racked up a 20 trillion dollar (or so) debt (both of those numbers are calculated in a way that is hostile to my point, I don't want to argue the details of exactly what they should be).
So the debt is better described as "excessive and foolish" than it is described as "vast and disastrous".
The essence of the proposal is exactly a minimum tax rate on all income over $1 million. People earning most of that $1 million as ordinary income will generally already be paying more than that new minimum rate, it will mostly impact people that would currently pay long term cap gains rates.
It isn't going to be an income tax increase on every person that has an AGI of $1 million, it is going to be an income tax increase on people that earn more than $1 million and have such large capital gains that their effective tax rate is lower than people earning a typical salary.
If you figure that the increase in taxes will probably be something like 10% on earnings that are likely around 5% of invested capital, it isn't even particularly worth squealing about preferring private sector investment to government spending, the impact will be in the range of 0.5% of the capital invested by these people (arguments that a 1% disincentive would somehow stop someone from trying to earn millions of dollars aren't even worth addressing seriously).
All this does is subject people with 7 figure capital gains incomes to a slightly higher effective tax rate. It only dings a few tens of thousands of people. People that are already massively rich by any reasonable definition.
Was he having trouble breathing or something more serious like that? A simple check to see if he had something that would justify antibiotics would cost a few hundred dollars in an ER, not thousands.
Visa and Mastercard are barely different companies, I doubt they will bother to fight about anything.
Right, because the one thing a technology company can expect is zero competitors attempting to eat their lunch.
That's likely just parochialism on your part, they lacked our absurd numbers and fantastic machines, but that's pretty much the entire difference.
If they interbred and the genes persist in the present day population, all it means is that the definition of human that excluded the 'other' species was wrong (or at least it calls the usefulness of that definition into question).
Anyway, it is a tautology that a species interbred with it's evolutionary predecessors.
I don't think it is that big a deal, unless you want to insist that there have been frequent prosecutions of breaking and entering that occurred due to silent changes to permission to enter.
That is, if the website fails to notify the user that their access has been terminated and fails to suspend the account/password, any resulting prosecution will look a tiny bit aggressive.
Here's the text of the current law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
(go yell at Cornell if you think it is not an accurate reflection of the current U.S. code, I don't care)
Section 1030(e)(6) defines the term âoeexceeds authorized accessâ as used in the law. The amendment to the proposed bill changes the definition explicitly to exclude TOS violations as a sole basis for determining unauthorized access.
Ya, well, it wasn't. Go figure.
That's a pretty ridiculous accusation to level at intel.
Sure, Moore's law is one part prediction and one part self fulfilling prophecy, but the progress in computer performance (per watt, per dollar, etc.) over the last 40 years has been pretty nice.
The Dutch government took over operation of the company more than a week ago. It is basically already defunct.
http://www.govcert.nl/english/service-provision/knowledge-and-publications/factsheets/factsheet-fraudulently-issued-security-certificate-discovered.html
The quality of the implementation matters quite a lot.
In other words, if it sucks, people won't like it, if it is nice, people may well like it.
If "technology increases" at a rate of 0.01% per year, it is increasing exponentially. At that rate, the consequences of 40 years of growth would barely be perceptible. After 1,000 years, things would seem to be changing a little.