Ok, and why is that tied to my ability to encrypt the connection? I'm 100% more worried about someone else sitting near me listening in when I'm using a public hotspot than I am with my web host being taken over and someone snooping in on my email password.
There are both mental and physical side effects, depending on the addiction. For some things, like alcohol for those who have been constantly inebriated, or for opiates, not taking the drugs can be lethal. Methadone exists for a reason.
For other addictions, though, the side effects are purely mental. Don't exercise for two days, and you start thinking you see pudge forming on your belly. Don't smoke weed for a day (if you have the 5-6 per day addition), and you start realizing how bad your life is.
It does not mean simply that doing it is pleasurable.
Plenty of people can become addicted to adrenaline rush through some method or another. They are usually said to be addicted to the source, not the adrenaline.
We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
Of course, because our country would be in much better shape if it was run solely by the self employed and the independently wealthy - you know, the kind of people who can afford to run for office knowing they'd be back on the streets looking for a job in two years.
Or do you mean to force every politician who wants to keep serving the country and not cater to special interests to instead find their favorite PAC or lobbyist and start "lining up" their post-service job?
Wikipedia's article mentions several problems and delays that I hadn't seen in any other stories (some of which lack citations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan
If that's true, then 80% of sports announcers need to be fired for compromising their journalistic integrity, because they actively promote their "news" subjects.
Maybe the guy who sits at the SportsCenter desk and just quotes statistics is "reporting". But the people in the stadium are almost always entertainers, not journalists in any way.
If this had been the "Disney World of Ice" skate-off Sunday night on ABC Family, would you have been upset if the flyover of Walt Disney World included an animated Tinkerbell?
So why not put the fuel cell in the flash then, and, if a flash is attached, allow it to power the dSLR and possibly recharge the (rechargable) battery?
No flash? Simply use the rechargable battery or swap in standard AAs. Add a flash? It has a long-lasting fuel cell, and, oh yeah, your camera lasts long, too. Pull off the flash and the battery is already topped off and ready to go.
Exactly. Note how, before the ceremonies started, they had Tom Brokaw come on and do the background story, including the controversies surrounding the torch relays.
Then, when he was done, he stepped back and the sports announcers took over again as they should. It should be clear enough, but perhaps it needs reiterating: sporting events are not news, they are entertainment. And sports "reporters" are more editorialists, announcers, or paid fanbois than news reporters. (Of course there are exceptions, but those are more related to specific jobs that require an aspect of objectivity, as opposed to specific people.)
How long would you want to watch a football announcer who has no interest in the game? Or at least withholds his interest to maintain a level of detached objectivity?
The NBC announcer said something about " virtual flythrough" or somesuch as it was shown, which made my wife and I discuss why they were showing us simulated film. Those steps looked obviously faked up until the few near the stadium.
I'd get the exact wording, but we've already deleted it from the DVR.
I don't know why this is news. It was said on air and obvious at the time.
The only case where self-signed certificates can be secure is when you manually verify the validity of a certificate beforehand and save it in your cert store.
And if I just want to use SSL to check my email on my private domain from a public hotspot, and have the certificate stored ahead of time?
Does it work in that case? If so, isn't your first sentence incomplete?
I covered this in my original post. Note that I said that "financial institutions" that put their money into these debts might or might now know that they were as risky as they truly were.
From the article you cite:
Although they tended to buy AAA-rated paper, that designation is not as reliable as it used to be, as the credit crunch has shown.
Maybe Freddie Mac knew the stuff they were buying shouldn't be AAA debt. Probably not. So they kept buying more and more loans because it made them the profit their required to earn, and everything they bought, repackaged, and sold, gained the backing of the government. From your article:
The illusion that investors saw through was the official line that debt issued by Fannie and Freddie was not backed by the government. No one believed this. Investors felt that the government would not let Fannie and Freddie fail; they have just been proved right.
Nobody was hiding the fact that a lot of these mortgage-backed bonds were backed by subprime mortgages.
But the state attorney general of New York disagrees.
In the letter, the New York Attorney General's office alleged that the nation's largest bank "has repeatedly and persistently committed fraud by material misrepresentations and omissions" in the underwriting, distribution and sale of auction rate securities, touting them as safe, cash-equivalent investments.
Yes, creating risky or bad debt by giving loans to people who cannot afford them was a key part of the problem.
But the reason the crisis has exacerbated, and badly hurt major financial institutions (CitiBank, IndyMac) is because the process of debt selling allowed bad debt to be masked as good debt. There were insufficient safeguards to make sure that the people (investors, businesses, financial institutions, etc.) that put their money into these debts knew that they were as risky as they truly were.
Consider the Freddie Mac situation. As a quasi-private company, Freddie Mac is directed to make a profit. However, as a quasi-government entity, they have special rights such as the right to use the Federal Reserve as their bank, and the right to guaranteed loans at preset rates. These guarantees made Freddie Mac have an impeccable credit rating, despite the fact that, to continue growing their profit, they kept buying more and more debt that was downright awful.
In other words, Freddie Mac's credit rating didn't reflect the junk nature of their assets. The same is true for CitiBank and IndyMac and other banks that held debt that they may-or-may-not have known was bad, but wasn't being shown as bad on their books.
Things that could have prevented this: 1) Congress has decided that our country is more stable when people own their own residence, so it encourages home ownership. Freddie Mac exists for this reason. I think this conflicts greatly with their charge to earn a profit. Wikipedia says this: "Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have spoken publicly in favor of greater regulation of the GSEs, because of the size of their holdings and the widespread perception that they are government backed.", which to me indicates that they agree. This quasi-goverment thing doesn't work. They should have been government owned, or privatized completely.
2) To avoid your home-town bank from getting its fingers (and your money) dirty in less-than-reliable debt, the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, among other things, prevented banks from offering things like investments and insurance. The late-90s Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed those parts, allowing banks, insurance companies, and investment firms to co-mingle. It's been argued that this relaxation of regulation also contributed to the crisis, as it allowed institutions that need to be stable for financial security (banks) to engage in the riskier activities of investment firms.
I think it's more likely that, as Mr. Pickens is a wealthy man, as opposed to a wealthy corporation, he's facing the reality that all humans face: he no longer cares about acquisition of wealth, he cares about being remembered after he's dead.
This fundamental drive of human nature (for most people) is one of the ways that corporations will never be like humans, and is one of the reasons that corporations should never be given the rights of humans, since they can't face all the responsibilities.
Forget this Moore guy. I don't care about him. What about the compromised AT&T DNS server?? I live in the Austin area and I logged into Paypal yesterday morning (ugh, I know) from home on our AT&T DSL. Was that DNS entry compromised? Do I need to take action?
Why was a legitimate news story turned into a social piece?
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car. Solar power is competing against coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear for electricity generation.
And Pickens' proposal was to create giant wind farms to generate electricity, so that we could free up the locally-sourced natural gas for cars.
I'm not saying I agree with him on everything, but some people understand plenty well where fuel comes from, at least well enough to know that you can use the same energy source for different purposes, just like you can use different energy sources for the same purpose.
(For what it's worth, our house is powered by wind and hydro for electricity, but natural gas for heat & water heat. I'd consider a swap to solar thermal if my HOA would allow solar anything on my roof.)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is less useful than it was before, and would be a great improvement.
However, as a better workaround, note that the following works: 1. Hit reply, realize you aren't logged on. 2. Open the "log in now" link in a new tab. Switch to that tab and log in on that tab. 3. Return to the original tab, type out your reply. 4. When you hit the preview button, it updates you as logged in.
This way you don't have to navigate back and find the post to reply to. As you said, it would be much easier if the log in boxes were right here on the same page.
I think it's more likely that, as Mr. Pickens is a wealthy man, as opposed to a wealthy corporation, he's facing the reality that all humans face: he no longer cares about acquisition of wealth, he cares about being remembered after he's dead.
This fundamental drive of human nature (for most people) is one of the ways that corporations will never be like humans, and is one of the reasons that corporations should never be given the rights of humans, since they can't face all the responsibilities.
We have several hundred years of relatively pollution-free fissionable material, provided we utilize breeder reactors and reprocess spent fuel into more fuel.
All told, I consider that an efficient "stop-gap" source, as it would last us longer than petroleum has, and it gives us a few hundred more years to figure out fusion.
Right. Because we want to limit the people who can run for Congress to be those that can drop their lifelong job or career, spend a year running for office, then hold office for two years, then do........ ?
How many people in what jobs can afford to quit and run for Congress? That's already limited enough, mostly to lawyers, rich people, and the rich-married. Then how many of those people could ever, ever get work again in their original field? Do you think an electrical engineer would find a job again in his profession after being a Congressman?
Your proposal would turn hundreds of people who actually want to live their lives in public service into people forced into roles as PR specialists, lobbyists, and spokespersons. Knowing that a PR job is their future within two years, their interests will shift (even more) to their future employer, away from their constituents.
Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection
Their fear of reelection is directly based on their fear of their constituents. That's who they're supposed to be afraid of, right? They're Democrats from conservative districts. They are actively representing the will of their constituents. I strongly disagree with their positions in this case, but what you propose would make things much, much worse, and absolutely not change the current situation.
Slashdot Mirror
If there actually was such a thing as a race of benevolent trolls, I bet they'd be pissed right about now.
I understand that a secret race of benevolent canned lunch meat products are furious, too.
Amen
Ok, and why is that tied to my ability to encrypt the connection? I'm 100% more worried about someone else sitting near me listening in when I'm using a public hotspot than I am with my web host being taken over and someone snooping in on my email password.
There are both mental and physical side effects, depending on the addiction. For some things, like alcohol for those who have been constantly inebriated, or for opiates, not taking the drugs can be lethal. Methadone exists for a reason.
For other addictions, though, the side effects are purely mental. Don't exercise for two days, and you start thinking you see pudge forming on your belly. Don't smoke weed for a day (if you have the 5-6 per day addition), and you start realizing how bad your life is.
It does not mean simply that doing it is pleasurable.
Plenty of people can become addicted to adrenaline rush through some method or another. They are usually said to be addicted to the source, not the adrenaline.
Holy crap... you want me to try and do image editing with EMACS?
Can't you just install GIMP on EMACS and do your editing that way?
We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
Of course, because our country would be in much better shape if it was run solely by the self employed and the independently wealthy - you know, the kind of people who can afford to run for office knowing they'd be back on the streets looking for a job in two years.
Or do you mean to force every politician who wants to keep serving the country and not cater to special interests to instead find their favorite PAC or lobbyist and start "lining up" their post-service job?
This CNN article (from last year) has much more information:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/14/dongtan.ecocity/
Wikipedia's article mentions several problems and delays that I hadn't seen in any other stories (some of which lack citations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan
If that's true, then 80% of sports announcers need to be fired for compromising their journalistic integrity, because they actively promote their "news" subjects.
Maybe the guy who sits at the SportsCenter desk and just quotes statistics is "reporting". But the people in the stadium are almost always entertainers, not journalists in any way.
If this had been the "Disney World of Ice" skate-off Sunday night on ABC Family, would you have been upset if the flyover of Walt Disney World included an animated Tinkerbell?
So why not put the fuel cell in the flash then, and, if a flash is attached, allow it to power the dSLR and possibly recharge the (rechargable) battery?
No flash? Simply use the rechargable battery or swap in standard AAs. Add a flash? It has a long-lasting fuel cell, and, oh yeah, your camera lasts long, too. Pull off the flash and the battery is already topped off and ready to go.
Seems obvious to me.
What journalism event were you watching? I was watching an entertainment show about a sporting event.
Exactly. Note how, before the ceremonies started, they had Tom Brokaw come on and do the background story, including the controversies surrounding the torch relays.
Then, when he was done, he stepped back and the sports announcers took over again as they should. It should be clear enough, but perhaps it needs reiterating: sporting events are not news, they are entertainment . And sports "reporters" are more editorialists, announcers, or paid fanbois than news reporters. (Of course there are exceptions, but those are more related to specific jobs that require an aspect of objectivity, as opposed to specific people.)
How long would you want to watch a football announcer who has no interest in the game? Or at least withholds his interest to maintain a level of detached objectivity?
The NBC announcer said something about " virtual flythrough" or somesuch as it was shown, which made my wife and I discuss why they were showing us simulated film. Those steps looked obviously faked up until the few near the stadium.
I'd get the exact wording, but we've already deleted it from the DVR.
I don't know why this is news. It was said on air and obvious at the time.
The only case where self-signed certificates can be secure is when you manually verify the validity of a certificate beforehand and save it in your cert store.
And if I just want to use SSL to check my email on my private domain from a public hotspot, and have the certificate stored ahead of time?
Does it work in that case? If so, isn't your first sentence incomplete?
I covered this in my original post. Note that I said that "financial institutions" that put their money into these debts might or might now know that they were as risky as they truly were.
From the article you cite:
Although they tended to buy AAA-rated paper, that designation is not as reliable as it used to be, as the credit crunch has shown.
Maybe Freddie Mac knew the stuff they were buying shouldn't be AAA debt. Probably not. So they kept buying more and more loans because it made them the profit their required to earn, and everything they bought, repackaged, and sold, gained the backing of the government. From your article:
The illusion that investors saw through was the official line that debt issued by Fannie and Freddie was not backed by the government. No one believed this. Investors felt that the government would not let Fannie and Freddie fail; they have just been proved right.
Nobody was hiding the fact that a lot of these mortgage-backed bonds were backed by subprime mortgages.
But the state attorney general of New York disagrees.
In the letter, the New York Attorney General's office alleged that the nation's largest bank "has repeatedly and persistently committed fraud by material misrepresentations and omissions" in the underwriting, distribution and sale of auction rate securities, touting them as safe, cash-equivalent investments.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/01/news/companies/citigroup_cuomo/index.htm?cnn=yes
Yes, creating risky or bad debt by giving loans to people who cannot afford them was a key part of the problem.
But the reason the crisis has exacerbated, and badly hurt major financial institutions (CitiBank, IndyMac) is because the process of debt selling allowed bad debt to be masked as good debt. There were insufficient safeguards to make sure that the people (investors, businesses, financial institutions, etc.) that put their money into these debts knew that they were as risky as they truly were.
Consider the Freddie Mac situation. As a quasi-private company, Freddie Mac is directed to make a profit. However, as a quasi-government entity, they have special rights such as the right to use the Federal Reserve as their bank, and the right to guaranteed loans at preset rates. These guarantees made Freddie Mac have an impeccable credit rating, despite the fact that, to continue growing their profit, they kept buying more and more debt that was downright awful.
In other words, Freddie Mac's credit rating didn't reflect the junk nature of their assets. The same is true for CitiBank and IndyMac and other banks that held debt that they may-or-may-not have known was bad, but wasn't being shown as bad on their books.
Things that could have prevented this:
1) Congress has decided that our country is more stable when people own their own residence, so it encourages home ownership. Freddie Mac exists for this reason. I think this conflicts greatly with their charge to earn a profit. Wikipedia says this: "Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have spoken publicly in favor of greater regulation of the GSEs, because of the size of their holdings and the widespread perception that they are government backed.", which to me indicates that they agree. This quasi-goverment thing doesn't work. They should have been government owned, or privatized completely.
2) To avoid your home-town bank from getting its fingers (and your money) dirty in less-than-reliable debt, the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, among other things, prevented banks from offering things like investments and insurance. The late-90s Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed those parts, allowing banks, insurance companies, and investment firms to co-mingle. It's been argued that this relaxation of regulation also contributed to the crisis, as it allowed institutions that need to be stable for financial security (banks) to engage in the riskier activities of investment firms.
Actually, I think (I've posted this before):
I think it's more likely that, as Mr. Pickens is a wealthy man, as opposed to a wealthy corporation, he's facing the reality that all humans face: he no longer cares about acquisition of wealth, he cares about being remembered after he's dead.
This fundamental drive of human nature (for most people) is one of the ways that corporations will never be like humans, and is one of the reasons that corporations should never be given the rights of humans, since they can't face all the responsibilities.
Forget this Moore guy. I don't care about him. What about the compromised AT&T DNS server?? I live in the Austin area and I logged into Paypal yesterday morning (ugh, I know) from home on our AT&T DSL. Was that DNS entry compromised? Do I need to take action?
Why was a legitimate news story turned into a social piece?
As a VMware stock holder, that sounds fine with me.
Did you not see T. Boone Pickens' proposal for reducing our dependency on foreign fuels?
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car. Solar power is competing against coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear for electricity generation.
And Pickens' proposal was to create giant wind farms to generate electricity, so that we could free up the locally-sourced natural gas for cars.
I'm not saying I agree with him on everything, but some people understand plenty well where fuel comes from, at least well enough to know that you can use the same energy source for different purposes, just like you can use different energy sources for the same purpose.
(For what it's worth, our house is powered by wind and hydro for electricity, but natural gas for heat & water heat. I'd consider a swap to solar thermal if my HOA would allow solar anything on my roof.)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is less useful than it was before, and would be a great improvement.
However, as a better workaround, note that the following works:
1. Hit reply, realize you aren't logged on.
2. Open the "log in now" link in a new tab. Switch to that tab and log in on that tab.
3. Return to the original tab, type out your reply.
4. When you hit the preview button, it updates you as logged in.
This way you don't have to navigate back and find the post to reply to. As you said, it would be much easier if the log in boxes were right here on the same page.
And then, since you vote "no" on absolutely everything, you're marginalized into a corner where you can have absolutely no effect on government.
Someone who walks in unable to compromise is unable to be a good decision maker. That's true regardless of their political affiliation.
In this case, I'm not sure the other benefits of the bill outweigh the downsides, but I'm not 50% sure what the bill contains.
I think it's more likely that, as Mr. Pickens is a wealthy man, as opposed to a wealthy corporation, he's facing the reality that all humans face: he no longer cares about acquisition of wealth, he cares about being remembered after he's dead.
This fundamental drive of human nature (for most people) is one of the ways that corporations will never be like humans, and is one of the reasons that corporations should never be given the rights of humans, since they can't face all the responsibilities.
We have several hundred years of relatively pollution-free fissionable material, provided we utilize breeder reactors and reprocess spent fuel into more fuel.
All told, I consider that an efficient "stop-gap" source, as it would last us longer than petroleum has, and it gives us a few hundred more years to figure out fusion.
Right. Because we want to limit the people who can run for Congress to be those that can drop their lifelong job or career, spend a year running for office, then hold office for two years, then do ........ ?
How many people in what jobs can afford to quit and run for Congress? That's already limited enough, mostly to lawyers, rich people, and the rich-married. Then how many of those people could ever, ever get work again in their original field? Do you think an electrical engineer would find a job again in his profession after being a Congressman?
Your proposal would turn hundreds of people who actually want to live their lives in public service into people forced into roles as PR specialists, lobbyists, and spokespersons. Knowing that a PR job is their future within two years, their interests will shift (even more) to their future employer, away from their constituents.
Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection
Their fear of reelection is directly based on their fear of their constituents. That's who they're supposed to be afraid of, right? They're Democrats from conservative districts. They are actively representing the will of their constituents. I strongly disagree with their positions in this case, but what you propose would make things much, much worse, and absolutely not change the current situation.