It sickens me to see all of these business people who somehow feel entitled to abuse the information of people to their advantage and have no sense of guilt or remorse over it. They get people to sign papers that include open-ended words like "...with our associates" without ever stipulating who those associates were, are or will be.
I always say "no" to those words when I see them because I see them for what it is -- a huge open door for them to insert changes of ALL sorts. Meanwhile, your end of whatever agreement says you have no right to change or do anything and if you have a dispute, you are to give up your right to trial or to sue much of the time.
And now, when people want to know what's what, and what they are doing behind the scenes, we get what? If business is doing something which violates the trust of their customers, why doesn't a customer have a right to know?! How else can a customer know when it's time to take their business elsewhere? These entitled business people want to maintain their rights to screw people over.
Sure, it's a nice arrangement when the success of the PC industry is the success of Microsoft. But how healthy is it when the failure of Microsoft is the death of the PC industry??? The influence that a software maker has over the hardware industries is VERY unhealthy.
Moron. It's called a hypothesis. First you propose an idea that might fit the circumstances and then test it. In this case, I would hope to test it in open discussion.
"Better than expected earnings" reported followed by "CFO leaving Microsoft." What if it turned out he left because someone insisted on filing deceptive or inaccurate numbers? Leaving in protest of such things would make sense of the two events wouldn't it?
No. Just a ridiculously obedient state. They don't need police when they have this outrageous sense of shame and high levels of acceptance of just about anything thrown at them.
Forget "air marshalls" Start handing pistols to people with willingness and a profile that works when you board a plane. Screw searching people for weapons and dangerous items. Make sure a deterrent is available. So far, the only REAL terrorist threats have been defeated by civilians beating the crap out of assholes. The people believe the threats are real and so far, people have demonstrated a willingness to take action against those threats. Proof that there are not quite as many sheeple as the government seems to think is right out there for everyone to see. Someone will be there to step up. And presently... those are the people the government is watching. That's military/ex-military (like me) and Christians. It makes sense if you think about it.
Two immigrants have had excessive contact with the FBI. It is well documented. Either (a) those immigrants were believed to be "okay" and passed into society after the FBI's scrutiny making them members of society here or (b) they are patsies sponsored by the FBI.
We have more pictorial evidence of the "Craft" contractors being invovled than we have of these two immigrants. Think on what information is available instead of what you are told you should believe. The information available doesn't look like the information we are being given.
Liberty has NEVER been something you "give up." You can't give it up while the next person keeps his. It is something everyone has or no one has. So to correct your statement, your liberty is being TAKEN with apologies and excuses given. So what you're saying is you're not accepting of their apologies or excuses. What follows is what you plan to DO about your liberties being taken.
It's probably already too late for me to secure firearms -- I don't have any now but I might be attending the next gun show in my area. But I will be practicing my head shots because I am quite sure my next enemy will be wearing a vest and may even be wearing a riot mask. But a head shot at a riot mask will give someone cause to pause. I probably won't last long after that but still. I expect to be one of many.
The government is not "the people" and I get offended every time I hear the government referred to in that way. (You know, "the people vs.....") The people are the people and when government employees take arms against "the people" they become enemies of "the people." *I* am the people. I pay taxes. I work for a living. I harm no one. *I* am no one's enemy. And *I* will not be the one making the first aggressive moves. We've got a big problem building and I find it HARD to believe that anyone would feel safer with a bunch of uniformed jackboots walking around with "assault weapons."
You should be teaming up right now putting together a trusted and guarded source with a built-in regulated system that says "we will not annoy the user." It should be trusted and verifiable. The content of ads should be reviewed for various things.
Get your stuff organized and legitimized, advertisers, as I will stop blocking you.
Also, I have never seen malware on my phones or tablets. I wonder why...
Microsoft's failures have had a cumulative effect. Non-tech people simply do not trust Microsoft products. It's the main reason why Windows phone is such a failure.
Consumer relevance is only part of the problem. Consumers are using Windows less. And the things consumers are using are increasingly "standards based" and/or "standards compliant." This will eventually translate over to business. Eventually, so long as standards are being followed, it will not matter what is used to transport the data.
Microsoft's most vehemently fought nightmare is becoming true. Microsoft and its proprietary nature and its vendor lock-in scheme is under threat and there doesn't appear to be a way beyond that. They have capitulated and even started making their browser more standards compliant. What else will be forced to follow?
I think the IT world is a very interesting thing. Think of any other profession. Doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants... just about everyone really. They do their work independent of any particular brand or product preference or requirement. Only in the IT world does it matter if you use one particular product or another. The interenet was created around standards and around the concept that anything should be able to connect to it so long as it followed the rules. This, of course, flies in the face of what companies like Microsoft have been doing. And at first, Microsoft ignored the internet. Then it got connected but it tried to control it at every turn. Java was a fast up and comer where rich content and rich user experiences were concerned. Microsoft immediately tried to take it over. They lost. And things like this went on and on as we all watched it happening -- some of us cheering while others shook their heads. "Active Directory is LDAP, but they changed it!!!" The cries fell on deaf ears. No one knew what LDAP was, but AD was awesome.
But more and more... Microsoft is becoming less and less relevant and standards are remaining important.
Microsoft may not die. But it will be remembered as one whose products have been an assault on the user/consumer at every possible turn costing them and business excessive amounts of money over the years. It wil be remembered as unstable and unreliable; as always needing to be patched, fixed, rebooted, and upgraded. It has earned its reputation.
I don't know why I am just now seeing it. I've always disliked the name and thought it was meaningless. But then I just realized it's "booK" with the letters all mixed up.
3D movies are a bit too gimmicky but "once in a while" an Avatar might appear and it might be fun to get a little more into it... it was yet another advancement of some sort of another, so trying out the experience is kind of a geek imperitive. But at the end of the day, it wasn't "all that" and certainly nothing that every movie production should do.
Now this? I'm sorry, but I don't think I need to even try to to know it would be far too distracting to be immersive.
A standoff meaning the people pushed back against tyranny and harrassment. What made it a stand off was that the notion that the government players could not and would not admit defeat. Once they start down a path, they can never ever back down and that's for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is to maintain the perception that they never lose under any circumstances. Right vs wrong and Legal vs Illegal was never going to see any discussion in a court room once the chain of events got started.
If they wanted him in a court room, they had many other opportunities to snatch him up away from his arms and his bretheren.
At the end of the day, the government's case was never made, many assertions blaming the victims have been debunked and the teeth of the ATF have been all but removed.
I'd say proof of fscking-up is well established here.
Objectively speaking, the Waco incident was needless as it was. 1) What was being done at the compound was not illegal and amounts to government harrassment. 2) The government tends to be quite full of itself to the point that when someone pushes back, they tend to lose control.
For another example of such, do a search on "active duty soldier illegally disarmed and arrested" and especially find the Youtube video while it's still up. A couple of cops literally claimed they were above the law and one insisted he was enforcing the will of the people and it didn't matter what the law says.
But this is rather off-topic you know?
Anyway, I watched the video -- impressive. The blast was amazingly powerful and the child, despite being scared to death, handled herself pretty well too. I think the end game on this story is that it was industrial safety gone wrong. It happens too often.
This is true. And learning how to box will not likely prevent you from being hit with a fist. But it does give someone a fighting chance and an assailant cause to rethink what they are about to do.
Because if it wasn't crude or primitive, the public fear would be that we have a sophisticated enemy rather than one we are all "better than."
The Russians were a fearsome enemy because they were just about as advanced as we were... equals in many respects. Better enemies are the ones we feel superior to like the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and Afghanis.
There is no relation between the 2nd amendment and a bombing. Anyone who puts that out there is clearly spouting without thinking.
What liberty and freedom can they take away after the bombing? Well, they can get heavier on public surveillance. After all "if there were cameras on every corner for every angle, the perpetrator(s) would have been recorded!" As for attempted poisoning? Let your mind run wild but once again, cameras on mail boxes would probably be an excuse there as well but there would probably be better ideas such as "can't mail things without a biometric stamp and associated universal ID."
There's no effective defense against stuff like this beyond what is already in place and WORKING. Detection and prevention was in place and it worked. Nothing to see here.
Clearly your statement is "anti-gun" and so I ask you. What is your idea of defense against gun violence? Please describe a scenario that might work if someone is not allowed to deter a threat with a weapon? I think we all appreciate when people have an opinion (an emotion actually in most cases) that firearms are dangerous and we don't need them. But we live in a reality where they exist regardless of their legal status. "Illegal aliens" are illegal and so is hiring them to do work. How is that helping the problem? Same thing with guns. So please describe a situation where an honest person can defend themselves without a weapon?
If someone wanted to get a piece of [tainted] paper into physical contact with the president or other important US political figure, sending it using the mail system is not the way to do it and I should think it would be more than obvious to anyone. Even without specific knowledge of the fact, various sniffing technologies can and should naturally be presumed as part of the normal mail screening and sorting processes. And even without that, isn't it hard to imagine the president actually opening his own mail?! He must receive 50lbs or mail or more a day from all the concerned citizens and crackpots out there. No way HE goes through it all personally. In which case, even without sniffing and detection technologies, it would likely get to someone else first.
So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless or this is something else.... more 'theater' for another cause supporting the loss of freedom and liberty.... or both.
Replying to myself... wish I could edit or "append"
Anyway, The last paragraph seems to be getting no mention or comment:
We don’t really know how this coin is created. You can’t have a functional money without a basic transparency. Unless you are addicted to volatile trading for the sake of trading, stay away from the Bitcoin. Thankfully its plunge will be a salutary caution to most folks.
We *DO* know how it's created if we care to learn about the technologies behind it. So the short of it is "I don't understand it, therefore it's not real." Great argument. Sounds like a great way to convert Christians to atheists -- just convince them they don't understand it and therefore their faith is invalid.
Forbes is pretending to not understand the nature of money. The piece is a bit of FUD and hogwash.
A bitcoin is a valid unit of measure. That there is no "cents" or "quaters, dimes, nickels" or "100 bitcoin notes" is far from relevant. (After all, the parallels he draws is units of length and measurements which are fractions of the base unit.)
What he's TRYING to make people think is that "this money, 'Bitcoin' is not based on anything." He does this while trying to shove aside the fact that the US dollar has similar or even worse bases of value. Of course it would have been far more obvious to the layman if he said "a dollar is worth a loaf of bread" simply because we know how much and sometimes why prices and values vary. And people who have ever dealt with foreign currency will know all too well that the dollar, the yen, the euro, the yuan, the pound and all those vary against one another just as the value of the dollar and the bitcoin varies against each other. This has not been a problem -- in fact, it becomes a problem when one currency ties itself to another such as the US Dollar and Chinese Yuan.
In the end, I am not sure who his intended audience is in this piece. Typically, Forbes caters to an audience that understands the nature of money. And to those people, I should think they would see right through his statements and arguments.
(Now that I consider this more deeply, I will change gears a bit.)
There is one thing which is troubling in my mind, though. And that is the obvious point that there is no "half-bitcoin." To make use of bitcoin for smaller transactions would appear to present a problem. But this problem is the same for how we deal with the problem of "half-pennies" or that ridiculous $0.009 tagged to the end of gasoline prices. That bitcoin doesn't go small enough does present itself in a way which is much more obvious, but when you consider the number of times people freaked out when the US considered dropping the half-cent. The same is true today when considering how to drop the penny from our ever-day cash currency exchange. We can and do still represent dollars in pennies (1/100th of a cent) in the bank, but when it comes to cash it would be a problem in the future. Bitcoin exacerbates this problem as there can be no "half-bitcoin."
So, perhaps in that sense, he's right. If you think of bitcoin the way you think of a stock or a bond, you realize, there is no "half-share." You have to convert it to something else in order to make change. Thinking of bitcoin in those terms, it begins to fit in with how it is used in a practical sense.
Slashdot Mirror
It sickens me to see all of these business people who somehow feel entitled to abuse the information of people to their advantage and have no sense of guilt or remorse over it. They get people to sign papers that include open-ended words like "...with our associates" without ever stipulating who those associates were, are or will be.
I always say "no" to those words when I see them because I see them for what it is -- a huge open door for them to insert changes of ALL sorts. Meanwhile, your end of whatever agreement says you have no right to change or do anything and if you have a dispute, you are to give up your right to trial or to sue much of the time.
And now, when people want to know what's what, and what they are doing behind the scenes, we get what? If business is doing something which violates the trust of their customers, why doesn't a customer have a right to know?! How else can a customer know when it's time to take their business elsewhere? These entitled business people want to maintain their rights to screw people over.
Unhealthy... where to begin?!
Sure, it's a nice arrangement when the success of the PC industry is the success of Microsoft. But how healthy is it when the failure of Microsoft is the death of the PC industry??? The influence that a software maker has over the hardware industries is VERY unhealthy.
Moron. It's called a hypothesis. First you propose an idea that might fit the circumstances and then test it. In this case, I would hope to test it in open discussion.
Not saying this is the case, but it would fit:
"Better than expected earnings" reported followed by "CFO leaving Microsoft." What if it turned out he left because someone insisted on filing deceptive or inaccurate numbers? Leaving in protest of such things would make sense of the two events wouldn't it?
No. Just a ridiculously obedient state. They don't need police when they have this outrageous sense of shame and high levels of acceptance of just about anything thrown at them.
You mean to say the frog never knew it was being boiled? Amazing. It's a good thing we are smarter than frogs...
I'd like to see a new program put into place:
Forget "air marshalls" Start handing pistols to people with willingness and a profile that works when you board a plane. Screw searching people for weapons and dangerous items. Make sure a deterrent is available. So far, the only REAL terrorist threats have been defeated by civilians beating the crap out of assholes. The people believe the threats are real and so far, people have demonstrated a willingness to take action against those threats. Proof that there are not quite as many sheeple as the government seems to think is right out there for everyone to see. Someone will be there to step up. And presently... those are the people the government is watching. That's military/ex-military (like me) and Christians. It makes sense if you think about it.
Two immigrants have had excessive contact with the FBI. It is well documented. Either (a) those immigrants were believed to be "okay" and passed into society after the FBI's scrutiny making them members of society here or (b) they are patsies sponsored by the FBI.
We have more pictorial evidence of the "Craft" contractors being invovled than we have of these two immigrants. Think on what information is available instead of what you are told you should believe. The information available doesn't look like the information we are being given.
Liberty has NEVER been something you "give up." You can't give it up while the next person keeps his. It is something everyone has or no one has. So to correct your statement, your liberty is being TAKEN with apologies and excuses given. So what you're saying is you're not accepting of their apologies or excuses. What follows is what you plan to DO about your liberties being taken.
It's probably already too late for me to secure firearms -- I don't have any now but I might be attending the next gun show in my area. But I will be practicing my head shots because I am quite sure my next enemy will be wearing a vest and may even be wearing a riot mask. But a head shot at a riot mask will give someone cause to pause. I probably won't last long after that but still. I expect to be one of many.
The government is not "the people" and I get offended every time I hear the government referred to in that way. (You know, "the people vs. ....") The people are the people and when government employees take arms against "the people" they become enemies of "the people." *I* am the people. I pay taxes. I work for a living. I harm no one. *I* am no one's enemy. And *I* will not be the one making the first aggressive moves. We've got a big problem building and I find it HARD to believe that anyone would feel safer with a bunch of uniformed jackboots walking around with "assault weapons."
Advertisers? Are you getting this?
You should be teaming up right now putting together a trusted and guarded source with a built-in regulated system that says "we will not annoy the user." It should be trusted and verifiable. The content of ads should be reviewed for various things.
Get your stuff organized and legitimized, advertisers, as I will stop blocking you.
Also, I have never seen malware on my phones or tablets. I wonder why...
Microsoft's failures have had a cumulative effect. Non-tech people simply do not trust Microsoft products. It's the main reason why Windows phone is such a failure.
Consumer relevance is only part of the problem. Consumers are using Windows less. And the things consumers are using are increasingly "standards based" and/or "standards compliant." This will eventually translate over to business. Eventually, so long as standards are being followed, it will not matter what is used to transport the data.
Microsoft's most vehemently fought nightmare is becoming true. Microsoft and its proprietary nature and its vendor lock-in scheme is under threat and there doesn't appear to be a way beyond that. They have capitulated and even started making their browser more standards compliant. What else will be forced to follow?
I think the IT world is a very interesting thing. Think of any other profession. Doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants... just about everyone really. They do their work independent of any particular brand or product preference or requirement. Only in the IT world does it matter if you use one particular product or another. The interenet was created around standards and around the concept that anything should be able to connect to it so long as it followed the rules. This, of course, flies in the face of what companies like Microsoft have been doing. And at first, Microsoft ignored the internet. Then it got connected but it tried to control it at every turn. Java was a fast up and comer where rich content and rich user experiences were concerned. Microsoft immediately tried to take it over. They lost. And things like this went on and on as we all watched it happening -- some of us cheering while others shook their heads. "Active Directory is LDAP, but they changed it!!!" The cries fell on deaf ears. No one knew what LDAP was, but AD was awesome.
But more and more... Microsoft is becoming less and less relevant and standards are remaining important.
Microsoft may not die. But it will be remembered as one whose products have been an assault on the user/consumer at every possible turn costing them and business excessive amounts of money over the years. It wil be remembered as unstable and unreliable; as always needing to be patched, fixed, rebooted, and upgraded. It has earned its reputation.
I don't know why I am just now seeing it. I've always disliked the name and thought it was meaningless. But then I just realized it's "booK" with the letters all mixed up.
3D movies are a bit too gimmicky but "once in a while" an Avatar might appear and it might be fun to get a little more into it... it was yet another advancement of some sort of another, so trying out the experience is kind of a geek imperitive. But at the end of the day, it wasn't "all that" and certainly nothing that every movie production should do.
Now this? I'm sorry, but I don't think I need to even try to to know it would be far too distracting to be immersive.
A standoff meaning the people pushed back against tyranny and harrassment. What made it a stand off was that the notion that the government players could not and would not admit defeat. Once they start down a path, they can never ever back down and that's for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is to maintain the perception that they never lose under any circumstances. Right vs wrong and Legal vs Illegal was never going to see any discussion in a court room once the chain of events got started.
If they wanted him in a court room, they had many other opportunities to snatch him up away from his arms and his bretheren.
At the end of the day, the government's case was never made, many assertions blaming the victims have been debunked and the teeth of the ATF have been all but removed.
I'd say proof of fscking-up is well established here.
Nice spin.
Objectively speaking, the Waco incident was needless as it was. 1) What was being done at the compound was not illegal and amounts to government harrassment. 2) The government tends to be quite full of itself to the point that when someone pushes back, they tend to lose control.
For another example of such, do a search on "active duty soldier illegally disarmed and arrested" and especially find the Youtube video while it's still up. A couple of cops literally claimed they were above the law and one insisted he was enforcing the will of the people and it didn't matter what the law says.
But this is rather off-topic you know?
Anyway, I watched the video -- impressive. The blast was amazingly powerful and the child, despite being scared to death, handled herself pretty well too. I think the end game on this story is that it was industrial safety gone wrong. It happens too often.
A fair argument and one I would be inclined to agree with. However, what else what in the letters? Just that? Surely there was more.
Also, I am interested to know what the Sunshine gang has to say with regards to this.
Why is that so hard. We just need an emergency network for our phones is all. Why tie up the basic services?
This is true. And learning how to box will not likely prevent you from being hit with a fist. But it does give someone a fighting chance and an assailant cause to rethink what they are about to do.
Because if it wasn't crude or primitive, the public fear would be that we have a sophisticated enemy rather than one we are all "better than."
The Russians were a fearsome enemy because they were just about as advanced as we were... equals in many respects. Better enemies are the ones we feel superior to like the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and Afghanis.
There is no relation between the 2nd amendment and a bombing. Anyone who puts that out there is clearly spouting without thinking.
What liberty and freedom can they take away after the bombing? Well, they can get heavier on public surveillance. After all "if there were cameras on every corner for every angle, the perpetrator(s) would have been recorded!" As for attempted poisoning? Let your mind run wild but once again, cameras on mail boxes would probably be an excuse there as well but there would probably be better ideas such as "can't mail things without a biometric stamp and associated universal ID."
Nice ridiculous argument.
There's no effective defense against stuff like this beyond what is already in place and WORKING. Detection and prevention was in place and it worked. Nothing to see here.
Clearly your statement is "anti-gun" and so I ask you. What is your idea of defense against gun violence? Please describe a scenario that might work if someone is not allowed to deter a threat with a weapon? I think we all appreciate when people have an opinion (an emotion actually in most cases) that firearms are dangerous and we don't need them. But we live in a reality where they exist regardless of their legal status. "Illegal aliens" are illegal and so is hiring them to do work. How is that helping the problem? Same thing with guns. So please describe a situation where an honest person can defend themselves without a weapon?
If someone wanted to get a piece of [tainted] paper into physical contact with the president or other important US political figure, sending it using the mail system is not the way to do it and I should think it would be more than obvious to anyone. Even without specific knowledge of the fact, various sniffing technologies can and should naturally be presumed as part of the normal mail screening and sorting processes. And even without that, isn't it hard to imagine the president actually opening his own mail?! He must receive 50lbs or mail or more a day from all the concerned citizens and crackpots out there. No way HE goes through it all personally. In which case, even without sniffing and detection technologies, it would likely get to someone else first.
So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless or this is something else.... more 'theater' for another cause supporting the loss of freedom and liberty.... or both.
Replying to myself... wish I could edit or "append"
Anyway, The last paragraph seems to be getting no mention or comment:
We don’t really know how this coin is created. You can’t have a functional money without a basic transparency. Unless you are addicted to volatile trading for the sake of trading, stay away from the Bitcoin. Thankfully its plunge will be a salutary caution to most folks.
We *DO* know how it's created if we care to learn about the technologies behind it. So the short of it is "I don't understand it, therefore it's not real." Great argument. Sounds like a great way to convert Christians to atheists -- just convince them they don't understand it and therefore their faith is invalid.
Forbes is pretending to not understand the nature of money. The piece is a bit of FUD and hogwash.
A bitcoin is a valid unit of measure. That there is no "cents" or "quaters, dimes, nickels" or "100 bitcoin notes" is far from relevant. (After all, the parallels he draws is units of length and measurements which are fractions of the base unit.)
What he's TRYING to make people think is that "this money, 'Bitcoin' is not based on anything." He does this while trying to shove aside the fact that the US dollar has similar or even worse bases of value. Of course it would have been far more obvious to the layman if he said "a dollar is worth a loaf of bread" simply because we know how much and sometimes why prices and values vary. And people who have ever dealt with foreign currency will know all too well that the dollar, the yen, the euro, the yuan, the pound and all those vary against one another just as the value of the dollar and the bitcoin varies against each other. This has not been a problem -- in fact, it becomes a problem when one currency ties itself to another such as the US Dollar and Chinese Yuan.
In the end, I am not sure who his intended audience is in this piece. Typically, Forbes caters to an audience that understands the nature of money. And to those people, I should think they would see right through his statements and arguments.
(Now that I consider this more deeply, I will change gears a bit.)
There is one thing which is troubling in my mind, though. And that is the obvious point that there is no "half-bitcoin." To make use of bitcoin for smaller transactions would appear to present a problem. But this problem is the same for how we deal with the problem of "half-pennies" or that ridiculous $0.009 tagged to the end of gasoline prices. That bitcoin doesn't go small enough does present itself in a way which is much more obvious, but when you consider the number of times people freaked out when the US considered dropping the half-cent. The same is true today when considering how to drop the penny from our ever-day cash currency exchange. We can and do still represent dollars in pennies (1/100th of a cent) in the bank, but when it comes to cash it would be a problem in the future. Bitcoin exacerbates this problem as there can be no "half-bitcoin."
So, perhaps in that sense, he's right. If you think of bitcoin the way you think of a stock or a bond, you realize, there is no "half-share." You have to convert it to something else in order to make change. Thinking of bitcoin in those terms, it begins to fit in with how it is used in a practical sense.