And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.
Price is information about where demand meets supply. If an emergency arises and prices are not raised, it doesn't driver the extra suppliers to resolve the problem. If prices are raised, those who would not consider giving rides otherwise, would do so for profit. This resolves emergencies faster. Forbidding to increases prices in emergencies is immoral. It prevents the aftermath of the emergency from being alleviated as soon as possible.
Why are they "accused" of jacking the price? "Described as" jacking the price would be a statement made in a moral society. In case any one forgot, Communism is the immoral social order. It's based on a lie that those who don't contribute, but "organize", are more competent at figuring out what is the appropriate cost of things. So when they don't understand why demand is surging (as it is in crisis), shortages are universal because those who can contribute cannot recoup their costs by increasing the prices. In Capitalism, a surge in demand creates a bubble of supply by willing contributors and the price quickly collapses when the demand is met. And the reason this happens is because prices increase. If there were more people in need of rides than willing drivers, a price could be increased until everyone able to give a ride would be willing to give rides (even those who would never consider doing so otherwise).
If you develop in Windows, you often need to run as a member of Administrators in order to debug services. It's either that or elevating the MSVS at the start (and I am not even sure that would work in allowing you to attach to services). If you do elevate MSVS though, you'll be creating files as a different user, so then you won't be able to edit them as your non-administrators user. So there is quite a bit of incentive to do all development as a member of administrators and have UAC turned on (both for 3rd parties' and for MS-authored software).
The issue is not that you don't run things as a root user. The issue is that you can limit what processes you run as root on Linux by only using sudo and only having it set to allow a limited set of commands. In Windows, an admin user is not running in a privileged mode by default (so all processes only have regular user privileges). The admin user can elevate to the privileged mode (and needs to answer in the affirmative to that UAC prompt if the policy is set to require UAC). But with this workaround, as soon as admin user logs in, a malicious process can elevate to admin level without ever presenting a UAC prompt. The sole act of an admin user logging in is enough for a malicious process to elevate and run in privileged mode. This downgrades Win 7 and Win 8 security to the security level of Win XP (in which all processes of the 1st logged in user run in the same session as the background services).
A security boundary not worth considering? For real? UAC and FS/registry virtualization are the only OS-level security paradigms added to Win 7 over Win XP. Without it, any background process running with administrative privileges can do what a logged-in administrator can do. This includes installing new software and doing essentially anything that a local TrustedInstaller user can do. Worse yet, if this ever happens when an admin user is logged in, the process would not even need to authenticate itself. It would just run it in the session of the logged-in admin user without the admin user ever knowing about it, with the admin user's full confidence that nothing can installed under his credentials (because he has UAC turned on and not allowing any installation to happen without first presenting a "may I, mother?" prompt). If they don't think the session security improvements are worth anything, why don't just start to openly support Win XP again? This is somewhat disturbing.
Didn't know that about CMU. I guess just because CU lasted as a free school for much longer. In the end, for most schools it's about the current value of the endowment. A few (maybe all?) Ivy Leagues won't charge tuition for families under certain income levels. But the ability to offer high-quality free education really lasts only as long as the alumni keep making donations and the endowment is not invested poorly.
Cooper Union was established by the industrialist Peter Cooper in the 19th century and until recently also had a free tuition. It was established for the same reasons: lack of skilled labor needed by the industrialists in New York. The school has 3, essentially independent, divisions: art, architecture and engineering. While their ability to offer free very high quality education (Cooper Union was ranked 1st among engineering schools by US News for many years) has diminished, the idea was still pioneered in the 19th century. So it's not all that revolutionary.
It's main danger is in that runs services in the same session as the locally logged-in user (session 0). This will always remain a vector of attack. But other than that, it's just as easy to secure as Win 7.
They may need to start reporting their income as having been earned in China (where they do sell quite a few units). Which government do you think will cooperate with the US more fully in case of fraud investigations? China or Ireland?
Regarding your comments about Trump: the fact that the only accusation they managed to dig up against him is that some of his businesses failed and that he's been sued is a pretty good indication that he's clean. His conglomerate participates in dozens if not hundreds of ventures. Some fail, some succeed. That's how business works. And virtually every successful business in the US has been sued... even the smallest business you can imagine would be foolish not to have some legal representation on retainer. That's just the society we live in. The barrier to suing someone with deep pockets is very low because the cost of litigation is universally larger than the cost of settling. Trump had failed businesses and there were times when he was in a technical bankruptcy (the value of his assets was lower than the value of his debt), but that did not mean that he was in an actual bankruptcy (failing to make payments to creditors). Orange County was in the same "bankruptcy " at some point during the 90's. And yet they never failed to provide any of the services. US government is in a constant state of such "bankruptcy" because it never collects as much in taxes as it spends (not even in today's world where it has record-high tax receipts).
Oh, and don't take this to be a cue to talk about "Clinton balancing the budget." Because I actually remember that year and I remember that it was
double booking
the same revenue (which was not even received yet) which allowed them to make that claim.
As for Trump's integrity, he actually bothers to get a divorce when he leaves his wife (unlike the Clintons staying in a marriage out of political convenience). Divorce is the honest way to leave your wife in case any one forgot.
Her only support comes from uninformed or zombified. And the thinking people are only supporting her because they see money in it or they are scared of her. Her power grows just like the power of any two-bit dictator. She uses power to gain more power. This is why we have term limits. Although she obviously found a way around them.
Because she relies on the fact that she'll get away with the most implausible excuses possible. She always has before. She is confident she can do it again. Trump has beaten mobsters before without becoming a mobster, so she may be in for a rude awakening.
No one supports Clintons unless they are paid too or threatened. Her utter disregard for the rule of law and use of raw power to intimidate her opponents is so apparent that the only question is why is no one is asking for RICO statue to be applied against her. She doesn't just breaks laws. She is running a criminal organization and uses political intimidation and bribery to push for more power. The only difference between her and the mob is that the mob did their deeds in hiding and Clinton does it in plain view. And lest anyone thinks that Trump will lose, he has a history of entering business arenas dominated by the mob and winning despite playing clean and not becoming a mobster himself. He has beaten these types of people before. If we are lucky, he'll do it again.
Very much so. Putin's political power comes from opposing oligarchs (who were self-made billionaires in the post-Soviet collapse). It is the fact that so many people couldn't adjust to the market-based economy which fueled frustration with the few who did. His power is maintained almost exclusively through dictatorship-style extra-judicial confiscation of wealth created by oligarchs and handing it over to his political cronies. These cronies are much better described as apparatchiks than "oligarchs."
It's called shooting the messenger. Even if Russia did hack the DNC servers, what they chose to release still demonstrates inappropriate behavior by the DNC chair. Even if Trump's candidacy benefits Russia, it doesn't change the fact that DNC chair undermining democratic elections (with a small "d") doesn't help The United States.
That's the cynical point of view. And anyone willing to question the the basic premise of basic income would be viewed as a cynic. The only way to justify cynicism to those who are not cynical though is to accept the premise on its face and see its natural outcomes.
What you say would be true if any form of addiction were a choice. But it's not. Even addictive behavior is governed by brain chemistry so it is, in fact, chemically induced. To assume that without disincentives people would not experiment with habit-forming destructive addictive behaviors is unjustified. And addiction (by definition) takes hold as a result of initial experimenting with addictive behavior. If less people were disincentivised to be addicted, then more people would become addicted. It's not a statement about a cause and a necessary effect. It's a statement about a cause of a statistical bias in one direction or another direction.
If anything, just take away the parents' basic income if they have too many kids. The disincentive would probably work very well.
Not for the kids. If the point of basic income is to alleviate suffering of the least able, then taking it away from the care takers of children would also accomplish the opposite of the intended goal.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.
Price is information about where demand meets supply. If an emergency arises and prices are not raised, it doesn't driver the extra suppliers to resolve the problem. If prices are raised, those who would not consider giving rides otherwise, would do so for profit. This resolves emergencies faster. Forbidding to increases prices in emergencies is immoral. It prevents the aftermath of the emergency from being alleviated as soon as possible.
Why are they "accused" of jacking the price? "Described as" jacking the price would be a statement made in a moral society. In case any one forgot, Communism is the immoral social order. It's based on a lie that those who don't contribute, but "organize", are more competent at figuring out what is the appropriate cost of things. So when they don't understand why demand is surging (as it is in crisis), shortages are universal because those who can contribute cannot recoup their costs by increasing the prices. In Capitalism, a surge in demand creates a bubble of supply by willing contributors and the price quickly collapses when the demand is met. And the reason this happens is because prices increase. If there were more people in need of rides than willing drivers, a price could be increased until everyone able to give a ride would be willing to give rides (even those who would never consider doing so otherwise).
He's on the wrong Java.
Don't worry bro, now she can be overseen by the Russian and Chinese government, too.
Who in their right mind runs Admin and turns off UAC?
Precisely.
You deserve malware if your doing that.
The described bypass (at least from my reading of the Slashdot summary) allows to bypass the UAC prompt even if UAC is turned on.
Developers need admin privileges. You can't debug services without them.
Not quite physical access. He just needs an admin to log in. So there is an admin user session running.
If you develop in Windows, you often need to run as a member of Administrators in order to debug services. It's either that or elevating the MSVS at the start (and I am not even sure that would work in allowing you to attach to services). If you do elevate MSVS though, you'll be creating files as a different user, so then you won't be able to edit them as your non-administrators user. So there is quite a bit of incentive to do all development as a member of administrators and have UAC turned on (both for 3rd parties' and for MS-authored software).
The issue is not that you don't run things as a root user. The issue is that you can limit what processes you run as root on Linux by only using sudo and only having it set to allow a limited set of commands. In Windows, an admin user is not running in a privileged mode by default (so all processes only have regular user privileges). The admin user can elevate to the privileged mode (and needs to answer in the affirmative to that UAC prompt if the policy is set to require UAC). But with this workaround, as soon as admin user logs in, a malicious process can elevate to admin level without ever presenting a UAC prompt. The sole act of an admin user logging in is enough for a malicious process to elevate and run in privileged mode. This downgrades Win 7 and Win 8 security to the security level of Win XP (in which all processes of the 1st logged in user run in the same session as the background services).
A security boundary not worth considering? For real? UAC and FS/registry virtualization are the only OS-level security paradigms added to Win 7 over Win XP. Without it, any background process running with administrative privileges can do what a logged-in administrator can do. This includes installing new software and doing essentially anything that a local TrustedInstaller user can do. Worse yet, if this ever happens when an admin user is logged in, the process would not even need to authenticate itself. It would just run it in the session of the logged-in admin user without the admin user ever knowing about it, with the admin user's full confidence that nothing can installed under his credentials (because he has UAC turned on and not allowing any installation to happen without first presenting a "may I, mother?" prompt). If they don't think the session security improvements are worth anything, why don't just start to openly support Win XP again? This is somewhat disturbing.
Didn't know that about CMU. I guess just because CU lasted as a free school for much longer. In the end, for most schools it's about the current value of the endowment. A few (maybe all?) Ivy Leagues won't charge tuition for families under certain income levels. But the ability to offer high-quality free education really lasts only as long as the alumni keep making donations and the endowment is not invested poorly.
Cooper Union was established by the industrialist Peter Cooper in the 19th century and until recently also had a free tuition. It was established for the same reasons: lack of skilled labor needed by the industrialists in New York. The school has 3, essentially independent, divisions: art, architecture and engineering. While their ability to offer free very high quality education (Cooper Union was ranked 1st among engineering schools by US News for many years) has diminished, the idea was still pioneered in the 19th century. So it's not all that revolutionary.
It's main danger is in that runs services in the same session as the locally logged-in user (session 0). This will always remain a vector of attack. But other than that, it's just as easy to secure as Win 7.
I believe contract-based enterprise support is still available. My retail-licensed XP vm's still get occasional security update pushes, too.
They may need to start reporting their income as having been earned in China (where they do sell quite a few units). Which government do you think will cooperate with the US more fully in case of fraud investigations? China or Ireland?
Regarding your comments about Trump: the fact that the only accusation they managed to dig up against him is that some of his businesses failed and that he's been sued is a pretty good indication that he's clean. His conglomerate participates in dozens if not hundreds of ventures. Some fail, some succeed. That's how business works. And virtually every successful business in the US has been sued... even the smallest business you can imagine would be foolish not to have some legal representation on retainer. That's just the society we live in. The barrier to suing someone with deep pockets is very low because the cost of litigation is universally larger than the cost of settling. Trump had failed businesses and there were times when he was in a technical bankruptcy (the value of his assets was lower than the value of his debt), but that did not mean that he was in an actual bankruptcy (failing to make payments to creditors). Orange County was in the same "bankruptcy " at some point during the 90's. And yet they never failed to provide any of the services. US government is in a constant state of such "bankruptcy" because it never collects as much in taxes as it spends (not even in today's world where it has record-high tax receipts).
Oh, and don't take this to be a cue to talk about "Clinton balancing the budget." Because I actually remember that year and I remember that it was
double booking
the same revenue (which was not even received yet) which allowed them to make that claim.
As for Trump's integrity, he actually bothers to get a divorce when he leaves his wife (unlike the Clintons staying in a marriage out of political convenience). Divorce is the honest way to leave your wife in case any one forgot.
Her only support comes from uninformed or zombified. And the thinking people are only supporting her because they see money in it or they are scared of her. Her power grows just like the power of any two-bit dictator. She uses power to gain more power. This is why we have term limits. Although she obviously found a way around them.
Because she relies on the fact that she'll get away with the most implausible excuses possible. She always has before. She is confident she can do it again. Trump has beaten mobsters before without becoming a mobster, so she may be in for a rude awakening.
No one supports Clintons unless they are paid too or threatened. Her utter disregard for the rule of law and use of raw power to intimidate her opponents is so apparent that the only question is why is no one is asking for RICO statue to be applied against her. She doesn't just breaks laws. She is running a criminal organization and uses political intimidation and bribery to push for more power. The only difference between her and the mob is that the mob did their deeds in hiding and Clinton does it in plain view. And lest anyone thinks that Trump will lose, he has a history of entering business arenas dominated by the mob and winning despite playing clean and not becoming a mobster himself. He has beaten these types of people before. If we are lucky, he'll do it again.
The Clinton astroturfing is strong with this one.
Very much so. Putin's political power comes from opposing oligarchs (who were self-made billionaires in the post-Soviet collapse). It is the fact that so many people couldn't adjust to the market-based economy which fueled frustration with the few who did. His power is maintained almost exclusively through dictatorship-style extra-judicial confiscation of wealth created by oligarchs and handing it over to his political cronies. These cronies are much better described as apparatchiks than "oligarchs."
It's called shooting the messenger. Even if Russia did hack the DNC servers, what they chose to release still demonstrates inappropriate behavior by the DNC chair. Even if Trump's candidacy benefits Russia, it doesn't change the fact that DNC chair undermining democratic elections (with a small "d") doesn't help The United States.
That's the cynical point of view. And anyone willing to question the the basic premise of basic income would be viewed as a cynic. The only way to justify cynicism to those who are not cynical though is to accept the premise on its face and see its natural outcomes.
What you say would be true if any form of addiction were a choice. But it's not. Even addictive behavior is governed by brain chemistry so it is, in fact, chemically induced. To assume that without disincentives people would not experiment with habit-forming destructive addictive behaviors is unjustified. And addiction (by definition) takes hold as a result of initial experimenting with addictive behavior. If less people were disincentivised to be addicted, then more people would become addicted. It's not a statement about a cause and a necessary effect. It's a statement about a cause of a statistical bias in one direction or another direction.
If anything, just take away the parents' basic income if they have too many kids. The disincentive would probably work very well.
Not for the kids. If the point of basic income is to alleviate suffering of the least able, then taking it away from the care takers of children would also accomplish the opposite of the intended goal.