I never purchase new games anymore. Interestingly, it's not because I can't afford to drop $60 on the game, but because I just can't see the game being worth $60. For $60 I get 20 hours of content, maybe 30, I'm taking a risk on not liking the game, not being able to return it for a full refund, and encountering bugs or game play issues that are silly and frustrating. Not to mention the irritations of DRM.
I'd much rather wait a year or more and buy the game at $20 new on sale. I still get the same content, I get the benefit of a year's worth of reviews to decide if I like it, and most bugs and game play issues have been fixed. I just finished Mass Effect, loved it, and bought it new for $20 instead of $59 when it was released.
Publishers have definitely priced themselves out of my market and what I'm willing to spend on entertainment. Even though I can easily afford to pay more, I won't because it offends my sense of reasonable value. I think the turning point for me was around $40... anything more than that just seems like they are gouging me. I probably purchase 10-15 games a year, so assuming 10, if they priced at $40 they would get $400 from me, instead, I wait and they only get $200 from me.
Can't the army just requisition the code on the basis of national security and fix the bug themselves...?
Many Universities and third party vendors already have full access to Microsoft source code. You better believe that the US government and Department of Defense have access as well.
For all intents and purposes, newspapers have been getting paid by advertising for years. I doubt the $0.50 I have to put in the box for daily newspaper covers the cost of the trees they have to cut down. Why can't the online advertising model work as well?
Because the newer generations are not like the previous generations. We do not blindly trust the words of an advertisement. We have a huge amount of information at our finger tips and can discover many points of view in seconds. We do not put all our trust in the editors and publishers of media to deliver our news and tell us what to buy.
In short, the power of the media to influence people is less than it was 20 years ago. Advertisers have realized this and are paying less for it.
I will lookup the information again tonight after work. For now, I'll go off of memory. The 3.4% of GDP is an older number, I believe it was from a 2003 study. It also is the amount of public funding for primary and secondary education only. Your higher 6% number includes higher education which is 1) very expensive in the US 2) includes a lot more people than other countries. I find it more beneficial to examine the primary/secondary spending since most countries require all children to attend those.
As for student-to-teacher ratios, I agree, a lower number is better. What I was pointing out was the disparity between the average and what is found in lower income schools. I'll also lookup that reference for you tonight.
Read my quote again, then examine your numbers again. Here, I'll help you figure it out:
The US spends approximately 3.4% of its GDP on public primary and secondary education
Your number includes higher education costs, which drastically skews the US number because of 1) the high cost of college 2) more people attending college than other countries.
I do not think that salary is the national average and is for the L.A. school district which likely needs to pay more for cost of living.
To be a teacher usually means you have least one Bachelor's Degree, one Master's Degree, and one teaching credential (think BAR for teachers). In your mid thirties you should have 10-15 years of teaching experience (many teachers begin teaching while still in graduate school). In the United States, the median salary for a Master's Degree and 10+ years of experience is $77k.
Cut the teamism. Education has been fucked up long before NCLB. In fact, it is a liberal enclave and the left has used "do it for the children" as a means of gaining power for themselves and the teachers union for 40 years.
Biased much? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the liberals actually want to help the children? Especially since the United States maintains its world position through education (though not for long). And do you realize that conservatives have favored government education mandates and control (through funding) since at least Reagan, except with the extreme right in recent years and its anti-science agenda?
We throw WAY too much money at education. Much of it doesn't go to the classroom and teachers where it should. Rather it goes to administration.
The US spends approximately 3.4% of its GDP on public primary and secondary education. That is less than Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Austria, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Ireland, UK, Spain, the EU as a whole, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, Poland, Malta, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, just to name a few. It is, however, about equal with Greece.
Leftist feel-good cirriculums dominate and as such our kids learn to either throw a ball or drop fries.
Leftist? Do you realize that our curriculum is very moderate compared to most of the world?
Science and math skills tank but we have happy little taxpayers who learn to vote in all the politically correct garbage they read in the "picture books" they were given in grade school.
By grade eight, the United States out performed 37 of 47 countries in Math, being primarily beat by 5 Asian countries (Taipei, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Japan) and equal to European countries (Hungary, England, Russian Federation, Lithuania, Czech Republic).
Also according to this study, the US has been improving average scores since it began tracking (1995). We are behind Asian countries because Asian school systems work harder, having much longer school years (220 days average vs 180 days in the US). Asian schools are often 6 days a week, 8 hours a day.
CUT the funding, limit the course work to what matters, fire administrators, and raise teachers' pay to attract our brightest to the field. Otherwise, stop bitching about education and stop using my tax dollars to fund this toilet.
How exactly are you going to cut the funding AND raise teachers' pay? I agree that we need to raise teachers' pay, but we should do it by increasing educational spending and cutting some spending elsewhere ($16 Billion a year in farm subsidies? $613 Billion a year on Defense? $48 Billion in earmarks?)
The US has been in a slight population boom since 1992, meaning more children to educate (approximately 11% increase). The US still has the largest percentage of the population completing upper secondary education (HS) of all countries in the world except Japan, and over the past forty years it has steadily increased (81% in 1960 to 87%). The US also has the largest percentage of the population completing higher education (college/university degree) in the world at 27 percent.
The US also has one of the worst student to teacher ratios in the world, averaging out to 16, but in lower income schools averaging over 35.
Here in the US, there is little doubt that the students own the copyright to their homework/papers:
Article that reviewed of the policies of 20 major universities:
"Traditional academic work product-under copyright policies of all universities surveyed (20), copyright ownership of non-directed academic works traditionally created by faculty and students (books, articles, theses, etc.) vests with the creators of such works."
Seems obvious that Sun was in talks with Oracle at least as early as February (when Monty Widenius left). I'm sure that Oracle and Widenius are mutually exclusive and may be the real reason that he left (or was asked to leave) Sun.
Well, under that theory I guess we couldn't hold the Watergate burglars accountable either. The orders came from the President, so they have the same weight as a legal interpretation until otherwise overturned. Of course you kind of glossed over the point that the whole idea of the telecom suits wasn't to punish AT&T but rather to use the discovery process to find out exactly what the hell happened......
Do you even understand what FISA is? It grants the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps on Americans. It provides a framework for balancing that authority: FISC (FISA courts). It even has provisions for the President to authorize warrantless wiretaps without approval from the FISC.
The President's Executive Order was a broad interpretation of the timeframes required for FISA reporting and for seeking FISC approvals. It did not grant additional powers to the Executive. Every wiretap conducted under the TSP was eventually brought before the FISC.
The Predsident cannot create new laws with Executive Orders. Watergate was illegal because there were no existing laws that gave the President the authority to commit campaign fraud, sabotage, break-ins, tax audits, or wiretapping (FISA was passed in 1978, Watergate was in 1972).
While providing exactly zero incentive for future administrations to actually follow the law, since we effectively set the precedent that you won't be punished or even investigated for bending/breaking it. I'm sorry, you can rationalize and/or spin it all you want but the FISA legislation stinks. I also seem to recall a certain former Senator from Illinois promising that he would filibuster any legislation containing telecom immunity. I guess that promise was as empty as the promise about a "new kind of politics".
I agree that FISA stinks, and we should have been harping on Congress for the past 30 years to get it changed. However, under FISA, the President had (and still has) the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps on Americans. What exactly would you sue the telecoms for? Not denying a government request to assist with legal wiretapping?
Executive order != the law. The mere issuance of an Executive Order is not enough to override Federal statues or Constitutional requirements.
Executive Order allows clarification of the law, and in this case was used to interpret the FISA act regulations in a questionable way. Until challenged and over turned by the Supreme Court or Congressional legislation, the Executive Order is effectively a legal interpretation of the law. We cannot hold the telecoms accountable for things we did not like but that were, in the strictest sense, legal.
Wow, you must be a member of the Obama administration to come up with that rationalization. The Executive already lacked the authority to bypass the FISA court. When they bypassed the FISA court they broke the law.
FISA grants specific authorities and the Bush Executive Order interpreted the authorities as broader than perhaps intended, however, still within the letter of the FISA law. They did not bypass FISA, as a FISA court still reviewed all conduct under the TSP program. They interpreted an overly broad definition of "terrorist" and extended the length of time required to before obtaining FISA approval for surveillance.
So yes, you are right, they lacked the authority to bypass FISA, however, HR 6304 fixed the ambiguities in the wording that allowed a broad interpretation.
In that case, I will file suit against you, slashdot user berashith, YOU have obviously spied on me illegally. I will ask the court for access to all your computer systems and copies of all your electronic communications for the past 7 years. I am also seeking equitable compensation for violation of my privacy.
If you haven't done anything wrong, then why shouldn't the case proceed?
The burden of going forward shifts from party to party, and currently the DoJ is saying that the plaintiff has no evidence for any of their claims (aka they are just fishing). Since there is no evidence, the DoJ has asked for Summary Judgment and dismissal. The plaintiff now has the option of presenting more evidence, adjusting it's claims, or letting the Judge decide if the case merits moving forward as it stands. It's very typical legal maneuvering, though the refutations of the plaintiff's claims are a bit broad.
What did you expect to happen? The defendant's lawyers to agree with the plaintiff and suddenly release all the government's classified documents? No, they are defending their client.
The Judge will decide if the case continues, not the knee-jerk reactions of the media.
Strange. I don't see anything about Obama claiming HR 6304 does not permit investigation of the Bush Administration. What I see is a court document filed in defense of:
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA); KEITH B. ALEXANDER, Director of the NSA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; DENNIS C. BLAIR, Director of National Intelligence.
That asks for dismissal of a suit brought against the Obama Administration based on speculation that a surveillance program still exists.
With the Bush Administration lawsuit, at least we have a reasonable certainty (based on a whistleblower) that surveillance was occurring. The "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was shutdown in 2007, so the suit against the Obama Administration is 100% pure speculation, why should it be allowed to proceed?
Obama voted for the legislation that ended any possibility we had of discovering the Bush abuses in this area. I'd say that he's at least his equal and will probably "out-Bush" him in the years to come. No reason to oppose expansions of Executive Power if you are the Executive, is there?
What legislation would that be exactly? You mean HR 6304? The bill that let the Telecoms off the hook, but allowed investigation into illegalities by the Bush Administration? That bill?
The telecoms conducted the wiretapping LEGALLY, according to a Bush Administration Executive Order. You can debate the Executive Order and Presidential Authority all you want, but at the time, the telecoms were acting within the law.
HR 6304 effectively overruled the Bush Executive Order and denies the Executive the authority to bypass the FISA courts.
Funny, that seems exactly like limiting the Executive Power...
Gov: We want to tap into all your lines.
ATT: Um... is that legal?
Gov: It is now, here is the Executive Order giving us the authority.
ATT: Ok, here you go.
Gov: *evil laughter?*
ATT Employee: Wait a minute, I feel like this violates privacy rights!
Gov: No! We have the authority!
Public: *outrage*
Public: Sue AT&T!
ATT: Wait what? It was *legal* according to the Executive Order!
Unlike most of Slashdot, I think AT&T should be let off the hook. Technically, it *was* legal for them to allow this under the Executive Order. Instead, we should be pursuing the Bush Administration for making the Executive Order in the first place.
Obama realized this in 2008 and has spoken about it, and even voted yes on the July 08 senate bill that was about Immunity for telecoms and instead investigating the government. The Obama Administration is still considering a Bush Administration investigation, though Leahy's 'truth commission' (torture not wiretaps) is apparently a stalled idea. Obama has not publicly supported the idea since becoming President, leading some to question his commitment to pursuing any of the potential Bush Administration crimes.
Republicans have obviously opposed the investigations, apparently threatening to filibuster various Obama nominations.
For both sides, it would probably create a lot of political ill-will at a time when bipartisanship is needed.
I'll wait and see what *actually* happens though before I solidify my opinions.
Interestingly, one of the data centers that our company has rack space at just suffered downtime tangentially because of BGP. They had a top level switch fail internally (route processor hardware problem), causing it to see all its BGP peers as down. It then established itself as the Master switch of a VRRP group, causing all traffic to be routed to it and then fail to be routed out because of the route processor error. All the peers continued to see the switch as up, thus preventing them from doing fail over.
A somewhat more balanced media is in everyone's interest.
What we need to do is dispense with the charade of calling it Journalism or News. It should be called Entertainment...
EntertainmentPapers
EntertainmentTV
Perhaps setup a requirement that to be called News also requires full disclosure of sources. Maybe even restrict the use of 'pundits' or so-called 'experts'. Require opinions to be clearly labeled as such. Require all funding and payments to be publicly disclosed.
Reporting from undisclosed sources could still occur, just not on 'News' channels. Only on 'Entertainment' channels.
The mortgages were always higher risk, they were just improperly categorized (in the securities they were used to back) as lower-risk. That was improper, and the "moving" of mortgages to higher-risk is not an actual re-evaluation, but simply a more realistic characterization of their risk.
In other words, it was nothing but a quite proper "market adjustment" that was long overdue. To put it more bluntly, it is a correction for some of the financial trickery and bullshit being pulled by the banks and finance companies in the past.
Mortgages by themselves have traditionally been considered a low risk investment. They were never as low as CDs, Bonds, or Treasuries. The primary reason for the low risk rating of Mortgages was that you had collateral (the house) that was valued at or above the amount of the loan. You also had (generally) larger down payment requirements that buffered you from losses. Some loan types were obviously higher risk than others, hence the Sub-Prime and Alt-A market.
The rise of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) bundled the loan types and hid the risk of Sub-Prime and Alt-A loans. Also, the housing bubble inflated housing costs and when it burst it ate up the buffer provided by down payments. Suddenly, even a low risk conventional loan to a high credit rating individual was upside down because the value of all homes dropped... not just foreclosed homes. This meant that even traditionally low risk mortgages were now at a higher risk because the amount owed was more than the collateral backing it. It doesn't matter if the owner has never missed a payment, the bank is at a higher risk.
You may be correct in calling it a correction. The banks should have known that the bubble would not last and their collateral on loans would devalue. But several (10+?) years down the road, when the housing market is stable again, you will find that most conventional mortgages are considered a safe investment.
The problem was not shift of low risk mortgages to higher risk. The problem was the characterization of inherently high-risk mortgages as being low risk, largely by financial trickery involved with the bundling of mortgages into securities for sale. It is well-known by now that relatively high-risk mortgages were being used to back securities that were (quite improperly) rated AAA and BBB.
The problem did NOT start with the "meltdown", the problem was inherent in irresponsible financial dealings by the banks and finance companies, starting long before the "meltdown" was even a glimmer in their eye.
You are absolutely correct. MBS or Mortgage Backed Securities are the tool used to "lie" about the inherent risk of Mortgages. MBS are a "pool" of Mortgages into a purchasable security. The thought was that quantity provided greater safety...
However, nationally, Mortgaged defaults are around 9%, which is still not too bad. Considering 21% of the market is sub-prime or Alt-A, there is still potential for more loss.
Above, I was referring to the problem of banks needing stimulus money. The reasons they need money are the (obvious) devaluation of their assets and the mortgage losses. I was not referring to what caused the entire problem originally.
AIG is involved through CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) which were used (I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism) to insure the MBS purchases of large banks. By giving AIG money, they were able to pay the promised insurance amounts to the banks, thus preventing the entire banking industry from collapsing. It could be argued that AIG was too large and insured too much of the market. The shady nature of CDOs is another story...
Capital ratios should be regulated. A big part of what got "us" into this mess was the 30-1 and 35-1 ratios of capital to lending (actually that is stated backwards: it was really 1/30 to even 1/35).
Used to be, a 10-1 ratio was considered pushing it.
You are confusing Reserve Ratio with Capital Ratio.
Reserve Ratio: The ratio of currency that must be held for each customer deposit and note. In the US this is generally 10%, and where you get your 10-1 number.
Capital Ratio: Ratio of capital vs risk-weighted assets. It also sets ratios for lending based on capital eroded by inflation. Capital is more than just money, it is assets, equity, reserves, general provisions (loses), term debt, etc.. There are multiple classifications and levels to Capital Requirements, but you will generally find 8% as a combined ratio requirement.
The problem was the shift of low risk mortgages to a higher risk, combined with the increasing loses from foreclosures and at the same time a slowing economy. The banks were in compliance prior to the housing melt down. The rapid devaluation of mortgage assets and the associated increase in risk caused the banks to become out of compliance.
As recently as November 2008 Banks were collectively 88 Billion dollars under on reserves. Remember, capital is not JUST reserves. The stimulus money brought the reserve amount up so that banks could continue operation without declaring bankruptcy (as many would have been forced to do). Much of the problem is that assets are risk weighted. Many mortgage assets have been moved from low risk to a higher risk, meaning the shift in risk has decreased the overall captial ratio.
Again, captial is not JUST money in the bank.
Do not confuse Reserve Ratio with Captial Requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
I never purchase new games anymore. Interestingly, it's not because I can't afford to drop $60 on the game, but because I just can't see the game being worth $60. For $60 I get 20 hours of content, maybe 30, I'm taking a risk on not liking the game, not being able to return it for a full refund, and encountering bugs or game play issues that are silly and frustrating. Not to mention the irritations of DRM.
I'd much rather wait a year or more and buy the game at $20 new on sale. I still get the same content, I get the benefit of a year's worth of reviews to decide if I like it, and most bugs and game play issues have been fixed. I just finished Mass Effect, loved it, and bought it new for $20 instead of $59 when it was released.
Publishers have definitely priced themselves out of my market and what I'm willing to spend on entertainment. Even though I can easily afford to pay more, I won't because it offends my sense of reasonable value. I think the turning point for me was around $40... anything more than that just seems like they are gouging me. I probably purchase 10-15 games a year, so assuming 10, if they priced at $40 they would get $400 from me, instead, I wait and they only get $200 from me.
Can't the army just requisition the code on the basis of national security and fix the bug themselves ...?
Many Universities and third party vendors already have full access to Microsoft source code. You better believe that the US government and Department of Defense have access as well.
64GB of memory has been supported for a LONG time, especially with server class hardware. Usually requires a Xeon or Opteron processor.
From 2005: Opteron based: http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20050729PR208.html
Xeon based: http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=9&l2=39&l3=712&l4=0&model=2147&modelmenu=2
How about 256gb? http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron8000/MCP55/H8QMi-2+.cfm
Warning! Windows 7 allows people to steal your identity! *
* if you have browser cookies enabled and password caching and they have physical access to the keyboard.
For all intents and purposes, newspapers have been getting paid by advertising for years. I doubt the $0.50 I have to put in the box for daily newspaper covers the cost of the trees they have to cut down. Why can't the online advertising model work as well?
Because the newer generations are not like the previous generations. We do not blindly trust the words of an advertisement. We have a huge amount of information at our finger tips and can discover many points of view in seconds. We do not put all our trust in the editors and publishers of media to deliver our news and tell us what to buy.
In short, the power of the media to influence people is less than it was 20 years ago. Advertisers have realized this and are paying less for it.
I will lookup the information again tonight after work. For now, I'll go off of memory. The 3.4% of GDP is an older number, I believe it was from a 2003 study. It also is the amount of public funding for primary and secondary education only. Your higher 6% number includes higher education which is 1) very expensive in the US 2) includes a lot more people than other countries. I find it more beneficial to examine the primary/secondary spending since most countries require all children to attend those.
As for student-to-teacher ratios, I agree, a lower number is better. What I was pointing out was the disparity between the average and what is found in lower income schools. I'll also lookup that reference for you tonight.
The US spends approximately 3.4% of its GDP on public primary and secondary education
Your number includes higher education costs, which drastically skews the US number because of 1) the high cost of college 2) more people attending college than other countries.
I do not think that salary is the national average and is for the L.A. school district which likely needs to pay more for cost of living.
To be a teacher usually means you have least one Bachelor's Degree, one Master's Degree, and one teaching credential (think BAR for teachers). In your mid thirties you should have 10-15 years of teaching experience (many teachers begin teaching while still in graduate school). In the United States, the median salary for a Master's Degree and 10+ years of experience is $77k.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master/Salary
If you examine that data you will see that teacher pay is behind most other Master's Degree job types.
Cut the teamism. Education has been fucked up long before NCLB. In fact, it is a liberal enclave and the left has used "do it for the children" as a means of gaining power for themselves and the teachers union for 40 years.
Biased much? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the liberals actually want to help the children? Especially since the United States maintains its world position through education (though not for long). And do you realize that conservatives have favored government education mandates and control (through funding) since at least Reagan, except with the extreme right in recent years and its anti-science agenda?
We throw WAY too much money at education. Much of it doesn't go to the classroom and teachers where it should. Rather it goes to administration.
The US spends approximately 3.4% of its GDP on public primary and secondary education. That is less than Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Austria, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Ireland, UK, Spain, the EU as a whole, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, Poland, Malta, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, just to name a few. It is, however, about equal with Greece.
Leftist feel-good cirriculums dominate and as such our kids learn to either throw a ball or drop fries.
Leftist? Do you realize that our curriculum is very moderate compared to most of the world?
Science and math skills tank but we have happy little taxpayers who learn to vote in all the politically correct garbage they read in the "picture books" they were given in grade school.
Do you have any figures to back that up? No. How about this: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf
By grade eight, the United States out performed 37 of 47 countries in Math, being primarily beat by 5 Asian countries (Taipei, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Japan) and equal to European countries (Hungary, England, Russian Federation, Lithuania, Czech Republic).
Also according to this study, the US has been improving average scores since it began tracking (1995). We are behind Asian countries because Asian school systems work harder, having much longer school years (220 days average vs 180 days in the US). Asian schools are often 6 days a week, 8 hours a day.
CUT the funding, limit the course work to what matters, fire administrators, and raise teachers' pay to attract our brightest to the field. Otherwise, stop bitching about education and stop using my tax dollars to fund this toilet.
How exactly are you going to cut the funding AND raise teachers' pay? I agree that we need to raise teachers' pay, but we should do it by increasing educational spending and cutting some spending elsewhere ($16 Billion a year in farm subsidies? $613 Billion a year on Defense? $48 Billion in earmarks?)
The US has been in a slight population boom since 1992, meaning more children to educate (approximately 11% increase). The US still has the largest percentage of the population completing upper secondary education (HS) of all countries in the world except Japan, and over the past forty years it has steadily increased (81% in 1960 to 87%). The US also has the largest percentage of the population completing higher education (college/university degree) in the world at 27 percent.
The US also has one of the worst student to teacher ratios in the world, averaging out to 16, but in lower income schools averaging over 35.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003026.pdf
This should allow bypassing *some* of the Windows7 DRM features since it seems to be a way around part of the "trusted computing chain".
I will remind you that it was a Democrat that signed the DMCA into law.
Yep. Under a Republican House and Senate.
And it was Introduced by:
Howard Coble, N.C.-R
Henry Hyde, Illinois-R
John Conyers, Michigan-D
Barney Frank, Mass.-D
Also sponsored by:
Sonny Bono, Cali-R
Bill McCollum, Fl-R
Howard Berman, Cali-D
Mary Bono, Cali-R
Bill Paxon, NY-R
Chip Pickering, Miss-R
The bill passed:
The House 297-112, Republicans: 205 Yes, 16 No, Democrats 92 Yes, 95 No
The Senate 99-0, Republicans 54 Yes, Democrats 45 Yes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/house/2/votes/69/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/senate/2/votes/137/
So yeah, looks like Hollywood spread the donations around to both parties. At least more than half of the House Democrats voted no.
Here in the US, there is little doubt that the students own the copyright to their homework/papers:
Article that reviewed of the policies of 20 major universities:
"Traditional academic work product-under copyright policies of all universities surveyed (20), copyright ownership of non-directed academic works traditionally created by faculty and students (books, articles, theses, etc.) vests with the creators of such works."
http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/reports/pdfs/peer_overview.pdf
Notice that copyright on paid/sponsored works or works that are substantially based on University resources are held by the University.
Seems obvious that Sun was in talks with Oracle at least as early as February (when Monty Widenius left). I'm sure that Oracle and Widenius are mutually exclusive and may be the real reason that he left (or was asked to leave) Sun.
Well, under that theory I guess we couldn't hold the Watergate burglars accountable either. The orders came from the President, so they have the same weight as a legal interpretation until otherwise overturned. Of course you kind of glossed over the point that the whole idea of the telecom suits wasn't to punish AT&T but rather to use the discovery process to find out exactly what the hell happened......
Do you even understand what FISA is? It grants the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps on Americans. It provides a framework for balancing that authority: FISC (FISA courts). It even has provisions for the President to authorize warrantless wiretaps without approval from the FISC.
The President's Executive Order was a broad interpretation of the timeframes required for FISA reporting and for seeking FISC approvals. It did not grant additional powers to the Executive. Every wiretap conducted under the TSP was eventually brought before the FISC.
The Predsident cannot create new laws with Executive Orders. Watergate was illegal because there were no existing laws that gave the President the authority to commit campaign fraud, sabotage, break-ins, tax audits, or wiretapping (FISA was passed in 1978, Watergate was in 1972).
While providing exactly zero incentive for future administrations to actually follow the law, since we effectively set the precedent that you won't be punished or even investigated for bending/breaking it. I'm sorry, you can rationalize and/or spin it all you want but the FISA legislation stinks. I also seem to recall a certain former Senator from Illinois promising that he would filibuster any legislation containing telecom immunity. I guess that promise was as empty as the promise about a "new kind of politics".
I agree that FISA stinks, and we should have been harping on Congress for the past 30 years to get it changed. However, under FISA, the President had (and still has) the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps on Americans. What exactly would you sue the telecoms for? Not denying a government request to assist with legal wiretapping?
Executive order != the law. The mere issuance of an Executive Order is not enough to override Federal statues or Constitutional requirements.
Executive Order allows clarification of the law, and in this case was used to interpret the FISA act regulations in a questionable way. Until challenged and over turned by the Supreme Court or Congressional legislation, the Executive Order is effectively a legal interpretation of the law. We cannot hold the telecoms accountable for things we did not like but that were, in the strictest sense, legal.
Wow, you must be a member of the Obama administration to come up with that rationalization. The Executive already lacked the authority to bypass the FISA court. When they bypassed the FISA court they broke the law.
FISA grants specific authorities and the Bush Executive Order interpreted the authorities as broader than perhaps intended, however, still within the letter of the FISA law. They did not bypass FISA, as a FISA court still reviewed all conduct under the TSP program. They interpreted an overly broad definition of "terrorist" and extended the length of time required to before obtaining FISA approval for surveillance.
So yes, you are right, they lacked the authority to bypass FISA, however, HR 6304 fixed the ambiguities in the wording that allowed a broad interpretation.
In that case, I will file suit against you, slashdot user berashith, YOU have obviously spied on me illegally. I will ask the court for access to all your computer systems and copies of all your electronic communications for the past 7 years. I am also seeking equitable compensation for violation of my privacy.
If you haven't done anything wrong, then why shouldn't the case proceed?
The burden of going forward shifts from party to party, and currently the DoJ is saying that the plaintiff has no evidence for any of their claims (aka they are just fishing). Since there is no evidence, the DoJ has asked for Summary Judgment and dismissal. The plaintiff now has the option of presenting more evidence, adjusting it's claims, or letting the Judge decide if the case merits moving forward as it stands. It's very typical legal maneuvering, though the refutations of the plaintiff's claims are a bit broad.
What did you expect to happen? The defendant's lawyers to agree with the plaintiff and suddenly release all the government's classified documents? No, they are defending their client.
The Judge will decide if the case continues, not the knee-jerk reactions of the media.
Strange. I don't see anything about Obama claiming HR 6304 does not permit investigation of the Bush Administration. What I see is a court document filed in defense of:
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA); KEITH B. ALEXANDER, Director of the NSA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; DENNIS C. BLAIR, Director of National Intelligence.
That asks for dismissal of a suit brought against the Obama Administration based on speculation that a surveillance program still exists.
With the Bush Administration lawsuit, at least we have a reasonable certainty (based on a whistleblower) that surveillance was occurring. The "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was shutdown in 2007, so the suit against the Obama Administration is 100% pure speculation, why should it be allowed to proceed?
Obama voted for the legislation that ended any possibility we had of discovering the Bush abuses in this area. I'd say that he's at least his equal and will probably "out-Bush" him in the years to come. No reason to oppose expansions of Executive Power if you are the Executive, is there?
What legislation would that be exactly? You mean HR 6304? The bill that let the Telecoms off the hook, but allowed investigation into illegalities by the Bush Administration? That bill?
The telecoms conducted the wiretapping LEGALLY, according to a Bush Administration Executive Order. You can debate the Executive Order and Presidential Authority all you want, but at the time, the telecoms were acting within the law.
HR 6304 effectively overruled the Bush Executive Order and denies the Executive the authority to bypass the FISA courts.
Funny, that seems exactly like limiting the Executive Power...
Government/AT&T summary?
Gov: We want to tap into all your lines.
ATT: Um... is that legal?
Gov: It is now, here is the Executive Order giving us the authority.
ATT: Ok, here you go.
Gov: *evil laughter?*
ATT Employee: Wait a minute, I feel like this violates privacy rights!
Gov: No! We have the authority!
Public: *outrage*
Public: Sue AT&T!
ATT: Wait what? It was *legal* according to the Executive Order!
Unlike most of Slashdot, I think AT&T should be let off the hook. Technically, it *was* legal for them to allow this under the Executive Order. Instead, we should be pursuing the Bush Administration for making the Executive Order in the first place.
Obama realized this in 2008 and has spoken about it, and even voted yes on the July 08 senate bill that was about Immunity for telecoms and instead investigating the government. The Obama Administration is still considering a Bush Administration investigation, though Leahy's 'truth commission' (torture not wiretaps) is apparently a stalled idea. Obama has not publicly supported the idea since becoming President, leading some to question his commitment to pursuing any of the potential Bush Administration crimes.
Republicans have obviously opposed the investigations, apparently threatening to filibuster various Obama nominations.
For both sides, it would probably create a lot of political ill-will at a time when bipartisanship is needed.
I'll wait and see what *actually* happens though before I solidify my opinions.
Truth Commission links:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200902/020909a.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3686
Interestingly, one of the data centers that our company has rack space at just suffered downtime tangentially because of BGP. They had a top level switch fail internally (route processor hardware problem), causing it to see all its BGP peers as down. It then established itself as the Master switch of a VRRP group, causing all traffic to be routed to it and then fail to be routed out because of the route processor error. All the peers continued to see the switch as up, thus preventing them from doing fail over.
A somewhat more balanced media is in everyone's interest.
What we need to do is dispense with the charade of calling it Journalism or News. It should be called Entertainment...
EntertainmentPapers
EntertainmentTV
Perhaps setup a requirement that to be called News also requires full disclosure of sources. Maybe even restrict the use of 'pundits' or so-called 'experts'. Require opinions to be clearly labeled as such. Require all funding and payments to be publicly disclosed.
Reporting from undisclosed sources could still occur, just not on 'News' channels. Only on 'Entertainment' channels.
Just some random ideas...
The mortgages were always higher risk, they were just improperly categorized (in the securities they were used to back) as lower-risk. That was improper, and the "moving" of mortgages to higher-risk is not an actual re-evaluation, but simply a more realistic characterization of their risk.
In other words, it was nothing but a quite proper "market adjustment" that was long overdue. To put it more bluntly, it is a correction for some of the financial trickery and bullshit being pulled by the banks and finance companies in the past.
Mortgages by themselves have traditionally been considered a low risk investment. They were never as low as CDs, Bonds, or Treasuries. The primary reason for the low risk rating of Mortgages was that you had collateral (the house) that was valued at or above the amount of the loan. You also had (generally) larger down payment requirements that buffered you from losses. Some loan types were obviously higher risk than others, hence the Sub-Prime and Alt-A market.
The rise of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) bundled the loan types and hid the risk of Sub-Prime and Alt-A loans. Also, the housing bubble inflated housing costs and when it burst it ate up the buffer provided by down payments. Suddenly, even a low risk conventional loan to a high credit rating individual was upside down because the value of all homes dropped... not just foreclosed homes. This meant that even traditionally low risk mortgages were now at a higher risk because the amount owed was more than the collateral backing it. It doesn't matter if the owner has never missed a payment, the bank is at a higher risk.
You may be correct in calling it a correction. The banks should have known that the bubble would not last and their collateral on loans would devalue. But several (10+?) years down the road, when the housing market is stable again, you will find that most conventional mortgages are considered a safe investment.
The problem was not shift of low risk mortgages to higher risk. The problem was the characterization of inherently high-risk mortgages as being low risk, largely by financial trickery involved with the bundling of mortgages into securities for sale. It is well-known by now that relatively high-risk mortgages were being used to back securities that were (quite improperly) rated AAA and BBB. The problem did NOT start with the "meltdown", the problem was inherent in irresponsible financial dealings by the banks and finance companies, starting long before the "meltdown" was even a glimmer in their eye.
You are absolutely correct. MBS or Mortgage Backed Securities are the tool used to "lie" about the inherent risk of Mortgages. MBS are a "pool" of Mortgages into a purchasable security. The thought was that quantity provided greater safety...
However, nationally, Mortgaged defaults are around 9%, which is still not too bad. Considering 21% of the market is sub-prime or Alt-A, there is still potential for more loss.
Above, I was referring to the problem of banks needing stimulus money. The reasons they need money are the (obvious) devaluation of their assets and the mortgage losses. I was not referring to what caused the entire problem originally.
AIG is involved through CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) which were used (I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism) to insure the MBS purchases of large banks. By giving AIG money, they were able to pay the promised insurance amounts to the banks, thus preventing the entire banking industry from collapsing. It could be argued that AIG was too large and insured too much of the market. The shady nature of CDOs is another story...
Capital ratios should be regulated. A big part of what got "us" into this mess was the 30-1 and 35-1 ratios of capital to lending (actually that is stated backwards: it was really 1/30 to even 1/35).
Used to be, a 10-1 ratio was considered pushing it.
You are confusing Reserve Ratio with Capital Ratio.
Reserve Ratio: The ratio of currency that must be held for each customer deposit and note. In the US this is generally 10%, and where you get your 10-1 number.
Capital Ratio: Ratio of capital vs risk-weighted assets. It also sets ratios for lending based on capital eroded by inflation. Capital is more than just money, it is assets, equity, reserves, general provisions (loses), term debt, etc.. There are multiple classifications and levels to Capital Requirements, but you will generally find 8% as a combined ratio requirement.
The problem was the shift of low risk mortgages to a higher risk, combined with the increasing loses from foreclosures and at the same time a slowing economy. The banks were in compliance prior to the housing melt down. The rapid devaluation of mortgage assets and the associated increase in risk caused the banks to become out of compliance.
This hasn't been true for some while
Let's examine the graph data
2008-10-01: -332.803
2008-11-01: -88.849
2008-12-01: 167.376
2009-01-01: 294.92
2009-02-01: 118.472
As recently as November 2008 Banks were collectively 88 Billion dollars under on reserves. Remember, capital is not JUST reserves. The stimulus money brought the reserve amount up so that banks could continue operation without declaring bankruptcy (as many would have been forced to do). Much of the problem is that assets are risk weighted. Many mortgage assets have been moved from low risk to a higher risk, meaning the shift in risk has decreased the overall captial ratio.
Again, captial is not JUST money in the bank.
Do not confuse Reserve Ratio with Captial Requirements.