If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and poof new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).
Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.
It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine exactly how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation. The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies (i.e. Cuba and the former Soviet Union). Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task. I don't claim to have the solution, but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers. The most recent bust proves that yet again.
The phrase "Well Duh!" comes to mind. I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going
The social sciences, of which economics is a part, must do research and gather evidence to back up their conclusions; even those which should be obvious to everyone. This is really not so different from proofs in other fields where even 'obvious' statements must still be proven or at least investigated. For example everyone 'knew' that Fermat's Last Theorem was true or at least the evidence strongly suggested that a counter example would not be found. However, it still had to be "proven", no matter how obvious, and that took 358 years from the time that Fermat proposed it. There is another example in the field of computer science where everyone 'knows' that P != NP, but as of yet nobody has been able to prove that (btw: the proof is worth $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute...its one of the Millenium Prize Problems).
As others have pointed out, using the Redbox example, there is nothing stopping anyone from purchasing a movie at retail and then renting it out. The studios may choose not to sell to you directly in bulk at a discounted price, but that doesn't mean that rentals of DVDs purchased at Walmart, for example, for 1$ per night are not profitable; The Redbox example proves that they are. If Redbox cannot get new movies through their regular supply chains then DVDs purchased from a big box retailer or Walmart work almost as well (profits might be slightly less than with bulk DVDs).
If you are a SharePoint guy then perhaps you can explain why it is so often sold a "general purpose" platform for web development when in fact it is a very poor choice for "general purpose" development? After all, SharePoint was built on top of and using ASP.NET so how can it replace ASP.NET as the general purpose developer platform? Another thing that bugs me about SharePoint is that, like classic VB, it swoops in to solve some "quick hit" problem in a business (i.e. we need better document management) and then proceeds to expand until it collapses under its own weight. This tends to "steal the thunder" of longer term custom development projects using more general purpose tools which, while not finished as quickly, actually scale up and ultimately don't get bogged down in the mud with the SharePoint project that got in over its head. I will admit that SharePoint has its place in the enterprise, but the over-zealous marketing drones at Microsoft and the SharePoint apologists on the blogosphere need to STOP pushing sharepoint as a general purpose development platform and the solution to all business intranet problems. In short they need to quit over-selling SharePoint and using a shoe horn to fit SharePoint into situations where it probably isn't the best choice. They are giving web development a bad name just to garner a few extra sales.
Who know how to handle a rifle and follow orders without question. Critical thinking may be indicative of greater cultural sophistication, but that didn't prevent Rome from being sacked by barbarians who, though lacking in culture, were handy with a sword.
This report demonstrates precisely why many companies, particularly those with no direct overseas connections, black hole the entire IP ranges of countries like China, Russia, and others. While this does not entirely prevent attacks originating in those countries it does put one more roadblock in the way of any would be attackers (i.e. they must first compromise some other US host before launching their attack through that host). According to the report linked in the TFA, the attackers were able to RDP into company computers directly from China...doh!
I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system.
I agree. In fact, I have argued that very point on Slashdot here for several years now. The development story on Microsoft platforms with Visual Studio,.NET and C# really is the bee's knees when it comes to writing advanced object oriented software. This IMHO, more than anything else, has kept Microsoft afloat since 2003; without.NET they would already be dead. If the Linux crowd really wants to strike a blow against Microsoft then it must STOP attacking Miguel and Mono and instead help make the.NET experience on Linux the best that it can be. Right now they fight against Mono and attempt to marginalize it which ironically plays right into Microsoft's hand. If they really want to strike a blow against Microsoft then they need to hit them where it hurts by making MonoDevelop and Mono a serious competitor to Visual Studio and.NET Framework for development. Microsoft has always been keen to court developers (they talk all the time internally about "developer mindshare" because they know that developers are important) and the strategy has always paid off. Now is the time for the Linux crowd to take a page from the Microsoft playbook and focus more on the development experience with Mono.
Why? Do you believe that the competition will be any different? Are they going to track you down and find out that you ignored their suggestion to lobby from a personal non-work e-mail account? You can probably ignore the e-mail and life will still go on. Have no illusions that the system isn't corrupt because it absolutely is corrupt; in fact, its rotten to the core. This why I smirk whenever I hear President Obama talk about how the government is going to root out waste and become the salvation of our economy. If big government is the answer then why did the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s fail to achieve their stated objectives? If one studies economics and works the political calculations through to their logical conclusions then the only position which makes any sense is to have less government. However, few people are honest enough to publicly advocate that position.
That is true right now yes, but there remains the issue of a possible conflict of interest with regard to future development. For example, suppose that someone submits some source code to MySQL that enables a "high-end" or "premium" feature that was previously only available in the more expensive "enterprise" Oracle products. Might not there be a disincentive for Oracle to merge those competing features into the "official" MySQL trunk? Despite what Oracle says or promises, their ownership of MySQL represents an implicit threat against future development of MySQL into areas which may compete with their profitable enterprise products.
Just as government contractors and consultants view federal government funds as a never-ending supply of money, colleges view it in a very similar way.
They are right; it is a never-ending supply of money in a perverse sort of way. It is important to remember that money is not the same thing as wealth or at least not when we are talking about the sort of paper fiat currency that passes for money just about everywhere these days. In principle, the Federal Government can create as much money as it wishes to by selling US Treasury bills (more paper) to eager buyers. Usually these T-bills are bought by foreign governments and private individuals both here in the US and abroad, but they can also be bought by the Federal Reserve as reserves to loan against (effectively creating money out of thin air...poof). At least in theory all of this is backed by the "the full faith and credit of the United States government" to pay you with...more paper. If at any point enough people decide that this system isn't working for them or isn't a good proxy for commodity exchange or barter then all of the paper becomes worthless (and we are heading in that direction rapidly with our record Federal deficits). Granted, this is a rather rough explanation of what is happening but surely we can all see the appeal of being the "first" to spend new money created by the Federal Government in the form of student loans before that money works its way through the economy and the inevitable inflation begins.
So attend community college instead of Harvard or Yale. Seriously, there are many students out there who are overpaying massively for the education that they are receiving. If you want to attend an expensive school then pay up front or take out the loans and pay later but do not expect those of us who made hard choices about which school to attend to pay for your Harvard education or your Yale degree with our tax dollars.
The country obtains a benefit from having an educated citizenry
While it is true that nations derive some non-zero benefit from a more educated citizenry, the benefit to society from investing in individual students is often overstated. The benefits of an advanced education (college level or above) accrue mainly to the individual receiving that education and not as much to society in general; so it makes sense that cost of that education be mostly paid by the one receiving the most benefit: the individual student.
Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy
Not every one of them will default. Some of them will pay back the loan at the higher rate which compensates the lenders for the other defaults and the overall higher risk (and students are generally a higher risk). If the interest rates were limited, by law for example, then there would simply be NO student loans to anybody because no private lender will take a risk that doesn't pencil out (i.e. results in negative average returns). Would you rather that there be some student loans, albeit at higher rates, or none at all?
Having read TFA, I think that the letter signers are more concerned that the government will botch the implementation of net neutrality. They may support the idea in principle, as Greg Brown apparently does, but feel that the government will bungle it and they may have a point.
Part of the problem is ISPs advertising false promises of "unlimited use" plans for flat monthly rates in conjunction with eye-popping speeds and then hiding what "unlimited use" really means in pages of contract fine print which states that speeds are not guaranteed, throttling or packet shaping may be used, etc. Perhaps it is time to start regulating some basic statistics of the data plan being offered; as for example with credit cards contracts where the annual percentage rates are printed front and center in larger fonts and conspicuous boxes. That way everyone will better understand what is being bought and at what price. At the very least, they should not be allowed to use the word "unlimited" in combination with any sort of advertised speeds unless they can get within some acceptable margin (i.e. 90%+) of that speed all of the time.
The U. S. was certain that the Russians didn't have the technology capability to produce nuclear weapons,
It is more accurate to say that we thought it would take them a bit longer than it did (the first successful Soviet nuclear test was conducted on August 29, 1949 at the Semipalatinsk Test Site); nobody who knew anything about the science at that time seriously doubted that Soviets would figure it out given sufficient time or that the US nuclear monopoly would last indefinitely. Actually, the first soviet device was a nearly exact copy of the US fatman design due to the fact that the bomb team was under tremendous pressure from Stalin to produce a successful test sooner rather than later AND there was only enough plutonium, at least initially, for one device of which the American design was known to have worked (it worked over Nagasaki). The independently produced soviet variation was subsequently tested and also worked, but such was the fear of Stalin and the consequences of an unsuccessful test (i.e. off to the gulag with you) that the soviet bomb team swallowed their pride and tested the American design first before building and testing their own.
The custom OS's could greatly hurt TI's reputation in the eyes of its biggest supporters: the test makers.
Well cry me a river, why is that the problem of hardware hackers who have already PAID for their devices? If we had a law against every activity which might damage somebody else's business model then we would be living in a police state already. If the test makers don't want "powerful calculators" used on their exams then why not simply ban all calculators? If they are interested in testing mathematical knowledge rather than rote arithmetic or button pressing ability then why not simply design the test along those lines in the first place and enforce the suggested ban against electronic assistance? Technology is a moving target which will change over time; attempting to fix it in place by law, for whatever reason, is both destructive and counter-productive.
On an amusing note, that displacement is actually the same order of magnitude as the "Planck length". I can't help but wonder whether the author engaged in some silly numerology in order to get it to work out that way.
The whole thing seems a bit elaborate for a prank; but then again those LHC scientists probably have a very interesting sense of humor provided that one can actually understand enough to get the "in jokes".
I once thought as you do now, especially when I was still in my twenties. However, two things occurred to me eventually which caused me to change my mind. First, unless you are Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg (i.e. you have founded the company) then wearing t-shirts and jeans will never get you into the executive suite. You will find that your income runs into a glass ceiling if you choose jeans and t-shirts because you are too intelligent to be caught wearing a suit. Second, as one gets older it becomes harder and harder to pretend that one is still under age thirty and wearing the clothes of the twenty something crowd begins to look ever more ridiculous. For the more inept among us, Nordstrom recently published a fairly decent basic field guide to men's style which covers good wardrobe choices for everything from casual to formal wear. Slashed jeans, worn t-shirt, and body piercing works for the baristas at Starbucks or the employees at your local book chain store, but for the rest of us knowing what to wear and what NOT to wear can be important. Why put yourself at a disadvantage, even if you are very intelligent, by wearing the wrong clothing?
While ChiefMonkeyGrinder would have us believe that a single corner case is a stunning indictment of the entire.NET platform, ask yourself this: Is there any platform out there that is perfect for every need? The.NET platform is a generic platform that is capable of delivering good or at least acceptable performance in most cases. However, good is not the same thing as perfect and.NET is not designed to be the perfect platform for what is essentially a real-time system in the case of a large global stock exchange. IMHO, if performance and reliability are so absolutely critical to the London Stock Exchange then they should consider a dedicated real-time platform like Integrity OS which makes absolute guarantees about execution times and meets the highest standards of reliability and up-time. Even GNU\Linux cannot deliver the same guarantees that systems in that class do (the Integrity 178B OS is used on, among other things, the F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets). Of course those last few nines of reliability 99.99999%+ are really going to cost you, but it might be worth paying if downtime costs the London Stock Exchange billions of dollars per hour.
From TFA: "The next two most popular operating systems were Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' and Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard,' which accounted for 6.4 percent of all visitors."
This means that exploit JavaScript code has been tuned to target vulnerabilities in Safari as well with code on the main exploit servers (the ones which initiate the drive by downloads) targeting vulnerabilities in some Apple Mac OS versions. The Mebroot gang is apparently among the more sophisticated bot net operators (i.e. they support alternative OSs or browsers). The Mac people need to learn some humility or they will be in for some nasty surprises as Windows becomes a more hardened target and Mac OS becomes more popular.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Reserve does not print money.
If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and poof new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).
Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.
It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine exactly how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation. The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies (i.e. Cuba and the former Soviet Union). Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task. I don't claim to have the solution, but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers. The most recent bust proves that yet again.
The phrase "Well Duh!" comes to mind. I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going
The social sciences, of which economics is a part, must do research and gather evidence to back up their conclusions; even those which should be obvious to everyone. This is really not so different from proofs in other fields where even 'obvious' statements must still be proven or at least investigated. For example everyone 'knew' that Fermat's Last Theorem was true or at least the evidence strongly suggested that a counter example would not be found. However, it still had to be "proven", no matter how obvious, and that took 358 years from the time that Fermat proposed it. There is another example in the field of computer science where everyone 'knows' that P != NP, but as of yet nobody has been able to prove that (btw: the proof is worth $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute...its one of the Millenium Prize Problems).
As others have pointed out, using the Redbox example, there is nothing stopping anyone from purchasing a movie at retail and then renting it out. The studios may choose not to sell to you directly in bulk at a discounted price, but that doesn't mean that rentals of DVDs purchased at Walmart, for example, for 1$ per night are not profitable; The Redbox example proves that they are. If Redbox cannot get new movies through their regular supply chains then DVDs purchased from a big box retailer or Walmart work almost as well (profits might be slightly less than with bulk DVDs).
If you are a SharePoint guy then perhaps you can explain why it is so often sold a "general purpose" platform for web development when in fact it is a very poor choice for "general purpose" development? After all, SharePoint was built on top of and using ASP.NET so how can it replace ASP.NET as the general purpose developer platform? Another thing that bugs me about SharePoint is that, like classic VB, it swoops in to solve some "quick hit" problem in a business (i.e. we need better document management) and then proceeds to expand until it collapses under its own weight. This tends to "steal the thunder" of longer term custom development projects using more general purpose tools which, while not finished as quickly, actually scale up and ultimately don't get bogged down in the mud with the SharePoint project that got in over its head. I will admit that SharePoint has its place in the enterprise, but the over-zealous marketing drones at Microsoft and the SharePoint apologists on the blogosphere need to STOP pushing sharepoint as a general purpose development platform and the solution to all business intranet problems. In short they need to quit over-selling SharePoint and using a shoe horn to fit SharePoint into situations where it probably isn't the best choice. They are giving web development a bad name just to garner a few extra sales.
That's the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
There's got to be a D&D joke in there somewhere.
to be blind cottonheaded nationalistic robots
Who know how to handle a rifle and follow orders without question. Critical thinking may be indicative of greater cultural sophistication, but that didn't prevent Rome from being sacked by barbarians who, though lacking in culture, were handy with a sword.
This report demonstrates precisely why many companies, particularly those with no direct overseas connections, black hole the entire IP ranges of countries like China, Russia, and others. While this does not entirely prevent attacks originating in those countries it does put one more roadblock in the way of any would be attackers (i.e. they must first compromise some other US host before launching their attack through that host). According to the report linked in the TFA, the attackers were able to RDP into company computers directly from China...doh!
I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system.
I agree. In fact, I have argued that very point on Slashdot here for several years now. The development story on Microsoft platforms with Visual Studio, .NET and C# really is the bee's knees when it comes to writing advanced object oriented software. This IMHO, more than anything else, has kept Microsoft afloat since 2003; without .NET they would already be dead. If the Linux crowd really wants to strike a blow against Microsoft then it must STOP attacking Miguel and Mono and instead help make the .NET experience on Linux the best that it can be. Right now they fight against Mono and attempt to marginalize it which ironically plays right into Microsoft's hand. If they really want to strike a blow against Microsoft then they need to hit them where it hurts by making MonoDevelop and Mono a serious competitor to Visual Studio and .NET Framework for development. Microsoft has always been keen to court developers (they talk all the time internally about "developer mindshare" because they know that developers are important) and the strategy has always paid off. Now is the time for the Linux crowd to take a page from the Microsoft playbook and focus more on the development experience with Mono.
Will be trying to switch job soon.
Why? Do you believe that the competition will be any different? Are they going to track you down and find out that you ignored their suggestion to lobby from a personal non-work e-mail account? You can probably ignore the e-mail and life will still go on. Have no illusions that the system isn't corrupt because it absolutely is corrupt; in fact, its rotten to the core. This why I smirk whenever I hear President Obama talk about how the government is going to root out waste and become the salvation of our economy. If big government is the answer then why did the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s fail to achieve their stated objectives? If one studies economics and works the political calculations through to their logical conclusions then the only position which makes any sense is to have less government. However, few people are honest enough to publicly advocate that position.
That is true right now yes, but there remains the issue of a possible conflict of interest with regard to future development. For example, suppose that someone submits some source code to MySQL that enables a "high-end" or "premium" feature that was previously only available in the more expensive "enterprise" Oracle products. Might not there be a disincentive for Oracle to merge those competing features into the "official" MySQL trunk? Despite what Oracle says or promises, their ownership of MySQL represents an implicit threat against future development of MySQL into areas which may compete with their profitable enterprise products.
Just as government contractors and consultants view federal government funds as a never-ending supply of money, colleges view it in a very similar way.
They are right; it is a never-ending supply of money in a perverse sort of way. It is important to remember that money is not the same thing as wealth or at least not when we are talking about the sort of paper fiat currency that passes for money just about everywhere these days. In principle, the Federal Government can create as much money as it wishes to by selling US Treasury bills (more paper) to eager buyers. Usually these T-bills are bought by foreign governments and private individuals both here in the US and abroad, but they can also be bought by the Federal Reserve as reserves to loan against (effectively creating money out of thin air...poof). At least in theory all of this is backed by the "the full faith and credit of the United States government" to pay you with...more paper. If at any point enough people decide that this system isn't working for them or isn't a good proxy for commodity exchange or barter then all of the paper becomes worthless (and we are heading in that direction rapidly with our record Federal deficits). Granted, this is a rather rough explanation of what is happening but surely we can all see the appeal of being the "first" to spend new money created by the Federal Government in the form of student loans before that money works its way through the economy and the inevitable inflation begins.
So attend community college instead of Harvard or Yale. Seriously, there are many students out there who are overpaying massively for the education that they are receiving. If you want to attend an expensive school then pay up front or take out the loans and pay later but do not expect those of us who made hard choices about which school to attend to pay for your Harvard education or your Yale degree with our tax dollars.
The country obtains a benefit from having an educated citizenry
While it is true that nations derive some non-zero benefit from a more educated citizenry, the benefit to society from investing in individual students is often overstated. The benefits of an advanced education (college level or above) accrue mainly to the individual receiving that education and not as much to society in general; so it makes sense that cost of that education be mostly paid by the one receiving the most benefit: the individual student.
Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy
Not every one of them will default. Some of them will pay back the loan at the higher rate which compensates the lenders for the other defaults and the overall higher risk (and students are generally a higher risk). If the interest rates were limited, by law for example, then there would simply be NO student loans to anybody because no private lender will take a risk that doesn't pencil out (i.e. results in negative average returns). Would you rather that there be some student loans, albeit at higher rates, or none at all?
Having read TFA, I think that the letter signers are more concerned that the government will botch the implementation of net neutrality. They may support the idea in principle, as Greg Brown apparently does, but feel that the government will bungle it and they may have a point.
Part of the problem is ISPs advertising false promises of "unlimited use" plans for flat monthly rates in conjunction with eye-popping speeds and then hiding what "unlimited use" really means in pages of contract fine print which states that speeds are not guaranteed, throttling or packet shaping may be used, etc. Perhaps it is time to start regulating some basic statistics of the data plan being offered; as for example with credit cards contracts where the annual percentage rates are printed front and center in larger fonts and conspicuous boxes. That way everyone will better understand what is being bought and at what price. At the very least, they should not be allowed to use the word "unlimited" in combination with any sort of advertised speeds unless they can get within some acceptable margin (i.e. 90%+) of that speed all of the time.
The U. S. was certain that the Russians didn't have the technology capability to produce nuclear weapons,
It is more accurate to say that we thought it would take them a bit longer than it did (the first successful Soviet nuclear test was conducted on August 29, 1949 at the Semipalatinsk Test Site); nobody who knew anything about the science at that time seriously doubted that Soviets would figure it out given sufficient time or that the US nuclear monopoly would last indefinitely. Actually, the first soviet device was a nearly exact copy of the US fatman design due to the fact that the bomb team was under tremendous pressure from Stalin to produce a successful test sooner rather than later AND there was only enough plutonium, at least initially, for one device of which the American design was known to have worked (it worked over Nagasaki). The independently produced soviet variation was subsequently tested and also worked, but such was the fear of Stalin and the consequences of an unsuccessful test (i.e. off to the gulag with you) that the soviet bomb team swallowed their pride and tested the American design first before building and testing their own.
On the other hand, if wars are made up of robots fighting robots, there'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sides
Wasn't there a Star Trek episode with a similar idea?
All of these pesky "limits" can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.
Hmmm...well you know, they could probably double the relative efficiency of the ODN conduits by simply reversing the polarity of the intermix chamber.
The custom OS's could greatly hurt TI's reputation in the eyes of its biggest supporters: the test makers.
Well cry me a river, why is that the problem of hardware hackers who have already PAID for their devices? If we had a law against every activity which might damage somebody else's business model then we would be living in a police state already. If the test makers don't want "powerful calculators" used on their exams then why not simply ban all calculators? If they are interested in testing mathematical knowledge rather than rote arithmetic or button pressing ability then why not simply design the test along those lines in the first place and enforce the suggested ban against electronic assistance? Technology is a moving target which will change over time; attempting to fix it in place by law, for whatever reason, is both destructive and counter-productive.
On an amusing note, that displacement is actually the same order of magnitude as the "Planck length". I can't help but wonder whether the author engaged in some silly numerology in order to get it to work out that way.
The whole thing seems a bit elaborate for a prank; but then again those LHC scientists probably have a very interesting sense of humor provided that one can actually understand enough to get the "in jokes".
I once thought as you do now, especially when I was still in my twenties. However, two things occurred to me eventually which caused me to change my mind. First, unless you are Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg (i.e. you have founded the company) then wearing t-shirts and jeans will never get you into the executive suite. You will find that your income runs into a glass ceiling if you choose jeans and t-shirts because you are too intelligent to be caught wearing a suit. Second, as one gets older it becomes harder and harder to pretend that one is still under age thirty and wearing the clothes of the twenty something crowd begins to look ever more ridiculous. For the more inept among us, Nordstrom recently published a fairly decent basic field guide to men's style which covers good wardrobe choices for everything from casual to formal wear. Slashed jeans, worn t-shirt, and body piercing works for the baristas at Starbucks or the employees at your local book chain store, but for the rest of us knowing what to wear and what NOT to wear can be important. Why put yourself at a disadvantage, even if you are very intelligent, by wearing the wrong clothing?
While ChiefMonkeyGrinder would have us believe that a single corner case is a stunning indictment of the entire .NET platform, ask yourself this: Is there any platform out there that is perfect for every need? The .NET platform is a generic platform that is capable of delivering good or at least acceptable performance in most cases. However, good is not the same thing as perfect and .NET is not designed to be the perfect platform for what is essentially a real-time system in the case of a large global stock exchange. IMHO, if performance and reliability are so absolutely critical to the London Stock Exchange then they should consider a dedicated real-time platform like Integrity OS which makes absolute guarantees about execution times and meets the highest standards of reliability and up-time. Even GNU\Linux cannot deliver the same guarantees that systems in that class do (the Integrity 178B OS is used on, among other things, the F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets). Of course those last few nines of reliability 99.99999%+ are really going to cost you, but it might be worth paying if downtime costs the London Stock Exchange billions of dollars per hour.
((vi is better))
VI VI VI is the number of the beast!
From TFA: "The next two most popular operating systems were Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' and Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard,' which accounted for 6.4 percent of all visitors."
This means that exploit JavaScript code has been tuned to target vulnerabilities in Safari as well with code on the main exploit servers (the ones which initiate the drive by downloads) targeting vulnerabilities in some Apple Mac OS versions. The Mebroot gang is apparently among the more sophisticated bot net operators (i.e. they support alternative OSs or browsers). The Mac people need to learn some humility or they will be in for some nasty surprises as Windows becomes a more hardened target and Mac OS becomes more popular.