Well, it depends. Some people do believe that the $1.7 trillion was indeed necessary to avoid a systematic collapse of the US economy. Whether they are correct or not is up for debate.
What is certainly clear is that ANY amount of money -- be it 0.1% of the bailout money or 95% of it -- is too much to give as *bonuses* to the idiot executives of these companies.
I see no inconsistency in anger over setting $100 on fire right after spending $100,000 on something believed necessary.
It's not about making the wealthy "suffer" through economic troubles. It's about throwing away a broken system and rebuilding something more robust in its place. The US economy is in deep trouble, and not just because of the financial and housing meltdown. If we want to maintain our relevance in the world, we need to reinvent ourselves. Propping up failing business models and bailing out huge corporations that are a *large cause of the problem* will only hurt us long-term.
Yes, it's a damned shame that many lower-income people would be hurt by allowing AIG (and others) to fail. And it sucks. And no, I wouldn't feel as "good" about it if I were in that situation. But that's kinda beside the point: it may very well be what's necessary to *really* fix our economy, and not just patch it up for another 15 years until the same thing happens again with a different (or hell, maybe even the same) industry.
Do I know that that would be the correct course of action? No, of course not. But what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Is it really ex post facto, though? My understanding is that tax code can be changed throughout the entirety of the year. A tax law change that is made in September can be specified to be in effect for the current tax year, no? This seems like just an extension of that...
Then if people still want to be angry, at least it's an honest reaction.
Right. And I think people still would be angry, though perhaps a bit more legitimately. Bailing out a corporation using hundreds of billions of dollars may very well end up being the "correct" course of action here. Giving executives of those corporations huge undeserved bonuses is incorrect whether those bonuses amount to 0.1% of the bailout money, or 90%.
No, that's wrong. border-radius is probably a poor example because there aren't too many ways you can define it, but imagine a CSS property that could have varying semantics.
And say it was in a draft spec, and a browser decided to implement the draft. Or worse, let's say there is no draft spec, and a browser decided to implement it with the hope it would end up in the next spec.
Further imagine that the draft spec later changes semantics in how the CSS property is interpreted. Presumably the browser gets updated to conform to the final version of the spec. But now you have different incompatible versions in the wild. How can web developers cater to both?
Actually, we don't really need to imagine. Witness the difference between the W3C and IE6 box model (the difference in how border, padding, and margin affect other properties dealing with size).
In this case we're "lucky": there are several bugs in IE6's CSS engine that cause it to fail to parse some declarations, so you can cater to IE6 if you want when writing CSS, and then "hide" the CSS that corrects the behavior from other browsers by exploiting the bugs. But of course that's still pretty awful.
But if different browsers namespace their CSS extensions, then you can cater to previous versions that might have incompatible interpretations very easily, if you so desire.
Sure, but the refusing bit can be handled just like any other case of normal school discipline. Why they felt the need to involve the police is beyond me...
Did you also read the clause about how they can change the terms at any time, without notice? Uploading pictures you may want to later exploit commercially given that clause seems pretty foolish to me.
Really? Only if you're an idiot. I'm a credit card user. I will charge just about anything I can rather than use cash. Why? Well, first off, I just don't like carrying cash around. The less I carry, the less can get lost/stolen.
But also, I have an airline miles reward card. I get miles every time I make purchases on the card. I fly a decent amount, so it's nice to get free flights (or free upgrades!).
I also get some semblance of peace of mind. I know that if someone steals my card and uses it, I'm not liable for the charges. If someone steals $200 worth of cash in my wallet, it's gone, for good.
I pay the balance off in full at the end of the month, so I'm never charged interest. So... I get free stuff for using the card, with no downside... for me, at least.
If you were told in advance that the satellite was going to fall into the exact location where your car was sitting, and that no one could change the satellite's trajectory because it was dead, and you nevertheless left your car there, then, yes, I'd say you're at fault.
Try fleshing out the analogy so it actually makes sense next time.
Well, it's also possible that the poster wants to help us save money on usually-overpriced cable/satellite service. But nah, let's jump to the douchebag conclusion. It's more fun that way.
So, the problem comes down to: CD audio and other pure audio sources - these are mastered 2.0. Easy to encode to digital AC3, and pass through to the surround unit.
No need... I'd be surprised to find a receiver with digital inputs that doesn't accept 2-channel PCM.
I really don't get why claiming HD support but "only" 720p makes you a "shyster." Hell, 18 months ago, most people with HD LCD TVs only had 720p TVs. You didn't hear people complaining that those LCDs "weren't really HD," did you?
Even if the legality of downloading TV shows might be questionable, it's certainly copyright infringement to *upload* them, which is what you're doing if you're using BitTorrent.
When? I'm not gonna say everything's always been rich and amazing for Americans, but I'd consider the US to have pretty much *always* been a first-world nation, even for a time pre-independence.
When we have money to spare we can indulge your sense of kindness.
Yep, there's the rub. How is it at all responsible for the US government to be *giving* away money it does not have? There's a time when you need to put your foot down and say, "we need to take care of our own concerns and problems first, and only then will we think about helping others in need."
News flash: the ecology has been here on planet Earth long before we were here, and will be here (in some form) long after we are gone. The idea that our actions matter in the grand scheme of the universe is somewhat laughable, at least.
Let's not kid ourselves. The only reason we care about the ecological balance of this planet is because it sustains us, and we don't want to fuck that up such that humanity is adversely affected.
Regardless, ecological interactions are far too complex for us to be able to predict the outcome of the extinction -- or lack of extinction -- of any particular species or class of species over the next decade, let alone over centuries. Does that mean we should go nuts and start killing off entire species just for the hell of it? Of course not. But birth and death are a natural part of the cycle of life on this planet. New species are born, have their time, and die off. If that's caused (directly or indirectly) by the actions of humans, who's to say that's "unnatural" or somehow wrong?
Well other countries are free to disregard our "advice" and blast away with DDT, and drain their swamps. Everyone needs to get by with what they have to work with. If a safer, more eco-friendly option is not available, then you either a) take care of your people first, and endure the ecological fallout;, or b) protect the environment and accept that some amount of your people will die as a result. Philanthropy is great, but expecting handouts is arrogant and juvenile.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it depends. Some people do believe that the $1.7 trillion was indeed necessary to avoid a systematic collapse of the US economy. Whether they are correct or not is up for debate.
What is certainly clear is that ANY amount of money -- be it 0.1% of the bailout money or 95% of it -- is too much to give as *bonuses* to the idiot executives of these companies.
I see no inconsistency in anger over setting $100 on fire right after spending $100,000 on something believed necessary.
It's not about making the wealthy "suffer" through economic troubles. It's about throwing away a broken system and rebuilding something more robust in its place. The US economy is in deep trouble, and not just because of the financial and housing meltdown. If we want to maintain our relevance in the world, we need to reinvent ourselves. Propping up failing business models and bailing out huge corporations that are a *large cause of the problem* will only hurt us long-term.
Yes, it's a damned shame that many lower-income people would be hurt by allowing AIG (and others) to fail. And it sucks. And no, I wouldn't feel as "good" about it if I were in that situation. But that's kinda beside the point: it may very well be what's necessary to *really* fix our economy, and not just patch it up for another 15 years until the same thing happens again with a different (or hell, maybe even the same) industry.
Do I know that that would be the correct course of action? No, of course not. But what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Is it really ex post facto, though? My understanding is that tax code can be changed throughout the entirety of the year. A tax law change that is made in September can be specified to be in effect for the current tax year, no? This seems like just an extension of that...
Then if people still want to be angry, at least it's an honest reaction.
Right. And I think people still would be angry, though perhaps a bit more legitimately. Bailing out a corporation using hundreds of billions of dollars may very well end up being the "correct" course of action here. Giving executives of those corporations huge undeserved bonuses is incorrect whether those bonuses amount to 0.1% of the bailout money, or 90%.
Yeah, sounds like Congress is bike-shedding...
Who said anything about rape?
No, that's wrong. border-radius is probably a poor example because there aren't too many ways you can define it, but imagine a CSS property that could have varying semantics.
And say it was in a draft spec, and a browser decided to implement the draft. Or worse, let's say there is no draft spec, and a browser decided to implement it with the hope it would end up in the next spec.
Further imagine that the draft spec later changes semantics in how the CSS property is interpreted. Presumably the browser gets updated to conform to the final version of the spec. But now you have different incompatible versions in the wild. How can web developers cater to both?
Actually, we don't really need to imagine. Witness the difference between the W3C and IE6 box model (the difference in how border, padding, and margin affect other properties dealing with size).
In this case we're "lucky": there are several bugs in IE6's CSS engine that cause it to fail to parse some declarations, so you can cater to IE6 if you want when writing CSS, and then "hide" the CSS that corrects the behavior from other browsers by exploiting the bugs. But of course that's still pretty awful.
But if different browsers namespace their CSS extensions, then you can cater to previous versions that might have incompatible interpretations very easily, if you so desire.
You can't get wildcard EV certs.
That's because people's definition of what is "safe and secure" tends to differ greatly.
No, but you can start an investigation into someone's activities based on a website post...
-1 Ignorant
No, he's confusing software development with basic math skills.
That's only with zero wear-leveling done.
Sure, but the refusing bit can be handled just like any other case of normal school discipline. Why they felt the need to involve the police is beyond me...
I also don't understand why revealing your phone number automatically reveals your location... especially if you call from a cell phone.
Did you also read the clause about how they can change the terms at any time, without notice? Uploading pictures you may want to later exploit commercially given that clause seems pretty foolish to me.
... the users get sacked...
Really? Only if you're an idiot. I'm a credit card user. I will charge just about anything I can rather than use cash. Why? Well, first off, I just don't like carrying cash around. The less I carry, the less can get lost/stolen.
But also, I have an airline miles reward card. I get miles every time I make purchases on the card. I fly a decent amount, so it's nice to get free flights (or free upgrades!).
I also get some semblance of peace of mind. I know that if someone steals my card and uses it, I'm not liable for the charges. If someone steals $200 worth of cash in my wallet, it's gone, for good.
I pay the balance off in full at the end of the month, so I'm never charged interest. So... I get free stuff for using the card, with no downside... for me, at least.
If you were told in advance that the satellite was going to fall into the exact location where your car was sitting, and that no one could change the satellite's trajectory because it was dead, and you nevertheless left your car there, then, yes, I'd say you're at fault.
Try fleshing out the analogy so it actually makes sense next time.
Well, it's also possible that the poster wants to help us save money on usually-overpriced cable/satellite service. But nah, let's jump to the douchebag conclusion. It's more fun that way.
So, the problem comes down to: CD audio and other pure audio sources - these are mastered 2.0. Easy to encode to digital AC3, and pass through to the surround unit.
No need... I'd be surprised to find a receiver with digital inputs that doesn't accept 2-channel PCM.
I really don't get why claiming HD support but "only" 720p makes you a "shyster." Hell, 18 months ago, most people with HD LCD TVs only had 720p TVs. You didn't hear people complaining that those LCDs "weren't really HD," did you?
Even if the legality of downloading TV shows might be questionable, it's certainly copyright infringement to *upload* them, which is what you're doing if you're using BitTorrent.
Wasn't America once a poor country, too?
When? I'm not gonna say everything's always been rich and amazing for Americans, but I'd consider the US to have pretty much *always* been a first-world nation, even for a time pre-independence.
When we have money to spare we can indulge your sense of kindness.
Yep, there's the rub. How is it at all responsible for the US government to be *giving* away money it does not have? There's a time when you need to put your foot down and say, "we need to take care of our own concerns and problems first, and only then will we think about helping others in need."
News flash: the ecology has been here on planet Earth long before we were here, and will be here (in some form) long after we are gone. The idea that our actions matter in the grand scheme of the universe is somewhat laughable, at least.
Let's not kid ourselves. The only reason we care about the ecological balance of this planet is because it sustains us, and we don't want to fuck that up such that humanity is adversely affected.
Regardless, ecological interactions are far too complex for us to be able to predict the outcome of the extinction -- or lack of extinction -- of any particular species or class of species over the next decade, let alone over centuries. Does that mean we should go nuts and start killing off entire species just for the hell of it? Of course not. But birth and death are a natural part of the cycle of life on this planet. New species are born, have their time, and die off. If that's caused (directly or indirectly) by the actions of humans, who's to say that's "unnatural" or somehow wrong?
Well other countries are free to disregard our "advice" and blast away with DDT, and drain their swamps. Everyone needs to get by with what they have to work with. If a safer, more eco-friendly option is not available, then you either a) take care of your people first, and endure the ecological fallout;, or b) protect the environment and accept that some amount of your people will die as a result. Philanthropy is great, but expecting handouts is arrogant and juvenile.