I didn't get the tone that he was "bragging". He was just making a point that you never know how situations will turn out so it is advisable to try and be professional even when a company is making a poor decision.
I wasn't really advocating a government policy forcing "Buy American" per say. What I was attempting to say that Americans as a whole need to start looking inwards for solutions meaning they should really put a preference on buying American made products when there is a choice. This can and should be applied to just not the US but most countries as a whole.
As I said also, a large trade inbalance (whether it is a large swing in the favor of the US or a large swing in favor of global purchases) is not good.
Though I do get you are being sarcastic here, you are correct that this is one of the best ways for the US economy to get out the slump. We need to keep the money within the US economy. The only problem is that it would cut throat of many other countries, but I am not sure if that can be avoided because somebody has to pay the price for the US trade imbalances.
However, the vast majority of people, poor or rich, can post bail through bail bonds, since in general, the vast majority of crimes don't involve people who are very likely to run away.
Bail in this case is $5,000,000. A bail bond would cost $500,000.
So much for the Eighth Amendment.
As the GP stated, the amount of bail is proportional to the severity of the charged crime and the risk of flight. The severity of the charge is quite high: the apparent hi-jacking of a government network.
I think I can give you one good reason to run Windows Servers as clients is that you can move those clients sessions between machines pretty quickly if you are having hardware issues. Do you pay a price for performance? Yes you do, but more times than not, the performance loss is minimal. This cuts down the shear number of backup hardware systems you would require.
Now I am not taking into account things like V-Motion from VMWare which do this with even more ease.
Well, I live in the middle of nowhere, and that is my only "high speed" option since I work from home. I have to say that my provider has always been reliable and steady. Last year, the dish started to fill with water, but they came out and replaced it for free.
The issue of sovereignty does not have to do with the definition, it has to do with the fact that they literally forfeited it after the first Gulf war. Once they fully complied with the terms of surrender, for which they never did, was Iraq to become a sovereign nation.
As for Reagan breaking up the Soviet Union, give me a break. Communism never works, with or without Reagan. It was Clinton who was smart enough to reap the peace dividend by closing bases and bring a govt. surplus, which Reagan never would have done.
Though I agree that communism never works on a large scale, it was Reagan who realized that the large spending on military advancements that would trigger the Russian paranoia to spend themselves into destruction. Reagan himself was not for large military deployments.
Regarding Clinton being "smart" and capitalizing on the base closing, I believe he did it because of his dislike for the military as a whole. Just my $0.02.
To be honest, there is already a "reward" system in-place. It is to both not buy from the company that is acting in a questionable fashion AND write a letter or send an email letting them know why you are not buying their product. The last action is just as important as the first in that you are letting them know why they are not getting a sale out of you.
The system might not have the immediate gratification, but it does work in the long run.
No, you haven't figured out where I am coming from at all. I am far better off than most of the population. As a matter of fact, last time I checked, I was upper-middle class, and had a decent shot of being lower-upper class. I love in a nice place in a good city, have plenty of extra cash for entertainment and travel, and don't have to worry about next month's bills. I'm in a good position in life, and its rather presumptuous of you to assume that I'm some lazy sap looking for a handout.
If you look back you will notice that I have not implied at all that you are a "lazy sap" or a successful tycoon, and I really take offense at your serious mis-characterization of what I have been discussing. I have been talking about your viewpoints and not your particular financial position. I do find if ironic that you were the first one to state just how well you are doing without knowing my position. I am not the one throwing it out there that I am upper-middle class with a fair amount of spare cash in my pocket and able to travel. Hmmm, yup, ironic.
What you haven't figured out is that I'm trying to be honest about where my success came from instead of patting myself on the back and turning up my nose at people less fortunate than myself.
Again, look back you will see that I NEVER said that anyone who is able to move forward should not be thankful for any help that they have received on the way. What I am saying is that you are basically telling people that to succeed means that they should feel somehow guilty of their success because it was done on the back of someone else. Most times, the people that do succeed by those methods, usually end up failing in the end so I am in no way endorsing those practices.
I've come to realize that the self-made-man is myth that people use to make themselves feel better. Its used so that people can denigrate poor people as just being lazy or unethical. Its used to reassure people that those rich guys really deserve everything because they're just so much better than the rest of us.
Now here you are taking just a few bad seeds and casting a wide assessment here. By and large, a very large percentage of successful people are the biggest givers to charities, and they don't do it for tax purposes, but out of the goodness of their heart. And many give anonymously because they don't want the light shone on them, they just want to help. Here I speak with many wonderful examples, but giving those examples would do their actions a disservice.
Its used so that people can turn a blind eye to their fellow humans without feeling like assholes.
I think many times here, you are actually talking about people that are born into wealth and success and not people that created that wealth. This is not always the case as I said.
Despite my best efforts, I would not be who I am today if I grew up in Africa or some third world hell-hole.
First off, I take serious offense with your language regarding "third world hell-hole". From one who travels to those regions quite frequently, you have ZERO clue here. If you had been born in one of those countries, and you had not succeeded relative to the population, then your success was pure luck, and I hope to God that you do get down on your hands and knees and thank him for giving you the apparent "dumb" luck. Now since you seem to mis-characterize me, when I say "dumb" luck, I mean the fact that you stumbled onto your success.
That is where I'm coming from: an honest assessment of reality instead of an idealized myth.
Your idealized myth is more of a mis-characterization more than anything. Down deep, you are for some reason, feeling guilty for your success, and you just don't realize it which is a shame because you can't really help those that do need the help because your formula for success is skewed by your guilt.
I think I have finally figured out where you are coming from: you are basically looking for excuses as to why you have not achieved your full potential by blaming people and circumstances around you that you can't control.
You were not promised a golden spool as neither was I. The difference is that I am not spending my time looking back and wondering "what if" and making sure I have a scapegoat ready when I hit a rough patch.
Will I fail? Odds are I will several times, but I take those as learning experiences where you seem to get mired in making excuses and blaming others.
Life is what YOU make of YOUR life, not what others tell you what you can only be. Once you let someone control the direction of your life (which I can only surmise is your situation), then you become a victim to mediocrity.
Now regarding your comment about "rich people" having more to loose from an unstable society. It is theirs to loose if they want, you do not have the right to tell them that they must do something (in this case, pay even more (more and higher percentage) in taxes compared to the next person) to help them keep they position in life. They are free to throw away their fortune if they want.
and where did you check, the heritage foundation? LOL
No, those numbers come from the IRS. You know, the ones that actually do the collecting.
Oh, but now you're going to come right back into that social darwinist tone you have with this post, as if everyone whose "out" is pounding at the door to get "in".
Please do not ever go into the business of mind-reading because you won't make much money. I did not imply that at all. What I was attempting to do is keep the conversion on-top, but since you want to go off-topic, I will bite.
...I say: money is important, but it isn't everything.This said, it's not YOU that made that success. It's a combination of circumstance and luck as well.
See that is where you are wrong. Nobody made me go out and get a job, but I did. I paid for MY by sacrificing my time to delivery pizzas so I could go to college.
...Who you know, to which family you were born, who you happened to meet and how they did.
I love my family dearly, but they were not in any position to pay for my education so I did not ask for a handle out, I EARNED it. See the difference there?
..Sorry, but it's just as much luck as anything else that go you your current income and net worth.
Guess what, bad luck can be overcome by time and hard work. Two concepts that most people these days don't want to sacrifice in the short term to win in the long term.
...Unless you have absolutely no compassion and are absolutely viscious, you should feel some obligation to give back to the community, and not just the causes your limited imagination can assume. That means giving some of your income back as taxes to a government which can represent all of the interests at play.
Again you are not very good at mind reading and off topic, but again, I will bite. I do believe in safety nets, and I do believe in paying taxes for which a percentage goes to pay for those safety nets. My disagreement with you is regarding that "rich people" (for which I am not) should pay a larger percentage based solely on the fact that YOU believe that it is fair. Fair is a subjective term here which I hope you understand.
I believe that everyone should pay the same percentage...period. To me that is fair. What you are proposing I believe is unfair. Just because someone makes more money does not entitle YOU to say that they should pay a higher percentage because YOU feel that they can afford it.
First off, nice tone there. I did read your comment, but my guess is that you did not understand what my comment was attempting to convey so I will give it a shot again.
While I do agree that the graduated tax system does not present a cap on your income, it does penalize you the more you make though. Now regarding your comment that the "rich" should pay their fair share, I am curious as to what their fair share is. Who says what their fair share is? You? Me? Who? What does represent "their fair share? 30%? 40%? 50% of their income? The last time I checked, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of total federal taxes, and the top 1% pay 39% of total federal taxes.
How are "the rich" more of a burden on such items as law enforcement? Are you telling me that the police don't protect your home? Your place of employment? Your car? When I was delivering pizzas to put myself through school, I saw a police presence far more in depressed areas than where "the rich" live. Where do most of the crimes happen?
It is a shame that you have fallen victim to class envy because if will hold you back from becoming a success in anything you desire. Now what I find ironic is that if you do end up fighting through to find our financial freedom, you will eventually see where I am right. You will see where you were one who took the risks and sacrificed, and you are the one who should enjoy the rewards of your success.
No it is not a win-win situation. What you are practicing is Robin Hood economics which teaches class envy. Saying that it is "Ok" to tax the rich more takes away the incentive for most people to advance since most "rich" people are not associated with a corporation: they are just employees of a corporation.
The system in the U.S. basically incentive-based, and you taking away the incentive because it is going into the pocket of the government and not in the pocket of the person working harder or taking the risk to advance.
Not sure if this helps or hurts, but here is why I mainly only hire developers with degrees: it shows dedication. It might not be the best practice, but being able to "stick it out" shows me that you have the tenacity to stay with a problem and find ways around your shortcomings to succeed because many times, a project throws you in situations where your education will let you down, but you still need to succeed.
Please note that I said "mainly" because I do realize that there people that do not fit in the normal mold, but they are found very quickly usually through references from friends/family in the field.
Is is "OK" to agree, but that does not make it true. Please look back through history, and the first action dictators perform is to take away all weapons from their soon-to-be subjects. Why you ask, will, it sure as heck is more difficult to revolt when you don't have weapons.
The second amendment was not there to help aid in place of a standing army. It was there to allow U.S. citizens to effectively revolt against government leaders that attempted to subjugate the voters.
Well, no it didn't happen. In each case the person in question won the majority of the electoral college which is how you become the President.
Now I am assuming you are attempting to reference the Florida issue, and if you were to do a little research you would find that the non-partisan sponsored recounts showed that that the candidate in question did win the popular vote from Florida.
That might not be necessarily true. If the manufacturing technique required to produce such items does not scale well, then the demand could go through the roof, but the costs will also.
The only problem with wind and solar is that where does the electricity come during the night or when the wind patterns are low. Our current storage technology (i.e. really large battery banks) just does not provide the efficiencies and costs that are required. The demand will still be there, and you have to plan on providing for that demand.
I do like those technologies to help offset the demand, but you just can't count on them for steady supply in my opinion.
You are close to how it works but off by just "this much". The actual PIN is never seen "in the clear". What is transmitted is what they call the encrypted PIN block which uses encryption keys stored in the ATM and are unique for each ATM. What this means is that you could only withdrawal money from that card and using that single ATM if you can view the message between the ATM and the host. The host then sends an encrypted pin verification key as well as the encrypted PIN block to a hardware device that reports strictly whether the PIN is good or bad.
I have a feeling that the crooks were able to get a large volume of track data reads for many cards, and the only real place to get those is if the host software is violating PCI regulations and logging track data to some type of persistent data storage (database or disk file).
The problem with your statement is that you assume that all management is bad in that they will always treat their employees like crap. Well guess what, that is not true. Actually the five companies that I have worked for in the past all would have gladly paid that money so I am not sure why you are so bitter.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't get the tone that he was "bragging". He was just making a point that you never know how situations will turn out so it is advisable to try and be professional even when a company is making a poor decision.
I wasn't really advocating a government policy forcing "Buy American" per say. What I was attempting to say that Americans as a whole need to start looking inwards for solutions meaning they should really put a preference on buying American made products when there is a choice. This can and should be applied to just not the US but most countries as a whole.
As I said also, a large trade inbalance (whether it is a large swing in the favor of the US or a large swing in favor of global purchases) is not good.
Though I do get you are being sarcastic here, you are correct that this is one of the best ways for the US economy to get out the slump. We need to keep the money within the US economy. The only problem is that it would cut throat of many other countries, but I am not sure if that can be avoided because somebody has to pay the price for the US trade imbalances.
Bail in this case is $5,000,000. A bail bond would cost $500,000.
So much for the Eighth Amendment.
As the GP stated, the amount of bail is proportional to the severity of the charged crime and the risk of flight. The severity of the charge is quite high: the apparent hi-jacking of a government network.
I think I can give you one good reason to run Windows Servers as clients is that you can move those clients sessions between machines pretty quickly if you are having hardware issues. Do you pay a price for performance? Yes you do, but more times than not, the performance loss is minimal. This cuts down the shear number of backup hardware systems you would require.
Now I am not taking into account things like V-Motion from VMWare which do this with even more ease.
Well, I live in the middle of nowhere, and that is my only "high speed" option since I work from home. I have to say that my provider has always been reliable and steady. Last year, the dish started to fill with water, but they came out and replaced it for free.
The issue of sovereignty does not have to do with the definition, it has to do with the fact that they literally forfeited it after the first Gulf war. Once they fully complied with the terms of surrender, for which they never did, was Iraq to become a sovereign nation.
As for Reagan breaking up the Soviet Union, give me a break. Communism never works, with or without Reagan. It was Clinton who was smart enough to reap the peace dividend by closing bases and bring a govt. surplus, which Reagan never would have done.
Though I agree that communism never works on a large scale, it was Reagan who realized that the large spending on military advancements that would trigger the Russian paranoia to spend themselves into destruction. Reagan himself was not for large military deployments.
Regarding Clinton being "smart" and capitalizing on the base closing, I believe he did it because of his dislike for the military as a whole. Just my $0.02.
To be honest, there is already a "reward" system in-place. It is to both not buy from the company that is acting in a questionable fashion AND write a letter or send an email letting them know why you are not buying their product. The last action is just as important as the first in that you are letting them know why they are not getting a sale out of you.
The system might not have the immediate gratification, but it does work in the long run.
If while on vacation I knowingly AND willingly attempted to kill innocent people, I would expect to be thrown into a hole.
The military tribunals have releases people from such military detentions so the process does work.
No, you haven't figured out where I am coming from at all. I am far better off than most of the population. As a matter of fact, last time I checked, I was upper-middle class, and had a decent shot of being lower-upper class. I love in a nice place in a good city, have plenty of extra cash for entertainment and travel, and don't have to worry about next month's bills. I'm in a good position in life, and its rather presumptuous of you to assume that I'm some lazy sap looking for a handout.
If you look back you will notice that I have not implied at all that you are a "lazy sap" or a successful tycoon, and I really take offense at your serious mis-characterization of what I have been discussing. I have been talking about your viewpoints and not your particular financial position. I do find if ironic that you were the first one to state just how well you are doing without knowing my position. I am not the one throwing it out there that I am upper-middle class with a fair amount of spare cash in my pocket and able to travel. Hmmm, yup, ironic.
What you haven't figured out is that I'm trying to be honest about where my success came from instead of patting myself on the back and turning up my nose at people less fortunate than myself.
Again, look back you will see that I NEVER said that anyone who is able to move forward should not be thankful for any help that they have received on the way. What I am saying is that you are basically telling people that to succeed means that they should feel somehow guilty of their success because it was done on the back of someone else. Most times, the people that do succeed by those methods, usually end up failing in the end so I am in no way endorsing those practices.
I've come to realize that the self-made-man is myth that people use to make themselves feel better. Its used so that people can denigrate poor people as just being lazy or unethical. Its used to reassure people that those rich guys really deserve everything because they're just so much better than the rest of us.
Now here you are taking just a few bad seeds and casting a wide assessment here. By and large, a very large percentage of successful people are the biggest givers to charities, and they don't do it for tax purposes, but out of the goodness of their heart. And many give anonymously because they don't want the light shone on them, they just want to help. Here I speak with many wonderful examples, but giving those examples would do their actions a disservice.
Its used so that people can turn a blind eye to their fellow humans without feeling like assholes.
I think many times here, you are actually talking about people that are born into wealth and success and not people that created that wealth. This is not always the case as I said.
Despite my best efforts, I would not be who I am today if I grew up in Africa or some third world hell-hole.
First off, I take serious offense with your language regarding "third world hell-hole". From one who travels to those regions quite frequently, you have ZERO clue here. If you had been born in one of those countries, and you had not succeeded relative to the population, then your success was pure luck, and I hope to God that you do get down on your hands and knees and thank him for giving you the apparent "dumb" luck. Now since you seem to mis-characterize me, when I say "dumb" luck, I mean the fact that you stumbled onto your success.
That is where I'm coming from: an honest assessment of reality instead of an idealized myth.
Your idealized myth is more of a mis-characterization more than anything. Down deep, you are for some reason, feeling guilty for your success, and you just don't realize it which is a shame because you can't really help those that do need the help because your formula for success is skewed by your guilt.
Success is gu
I think I have finally figured out where you are coming from: you are basically looking for excuses as to why you have not achieved your full potential by blaming people and circumstances around you that you can't control.
You were not promised a golden spool as neither was I. The difference is that I am not spending my time looking back and wondering "what if" and making sure I have a scapegoat ready when I hit a rough patch.
Will I fail? Odds are I will several times, but I take those as learning experiences where you seem to get mired in making excuses and blaming others.
Life is what YOU make of YOUR life, not what others tell you what you can only be. Once you let someone control the direction of your life (which I can only surmise is your situation), then you become a victim to mediocrity.
Now regarding your comment about "rich people" having more to loose from an unstable society. It is theirs to loose if they want, you do not have the right to tell them that they must do something (in this case, pay even more (more and higher percentage) in taxes compared to the next person) to help them keep they position in life. They are free to throw away their fortune if they want.
Sorry for the poor formatting here, I hit the Submit button instead of edit.
and where did you check, the heritage foundation? LOL
No, those numbers come from the IRS. You know, the ones that actually do the collecting.
Oh, but now you're going to come right back into that social darwinist tone you have with this post, as if everyone whose "out" is pounding at the door to get "in".
Please do not ever go into the business of mind-reading because you won't make much money. I did not imply that at all. What I was attempting to do is keep the conversion on-top, but since you want to go off-topic, I will bite.
...I say: money is important, but it isn't everything.This said, it's not YOU that made that success. It's a combination of circumstance and luck as well.
See that is where you are wrong. Nobody made me go out and get a job, but I did. I paid for MY by sacrificing my time to delivery pizzas so I could go to college.
...Who you know, to which family you were born, who you happened to meet and how they did.
I love my family dearly, but they were not in any position to pay for my education so I did not ask for a handle out, I EARNED it. See the difference there?
..Sorry, but it's just as much luck as anything else that go you your current income and net worth.
Guess what, bad luck can be overcome by time and hard work. Two concepts that most people these days don't want to sacrifice in the short term to win in the long term.
...Unless you have absolutely no compassion and are absolutely viscious, you should feel some obligation to give back to the community, and not just the causes your limited imagination can assume. That means giving some of your income back as taxes to a government which can represent all of the interests at play.
Again you are not very good at mind reading and off topic, but again, I will bite. I do believe in safety nets, and I do believe in paying taxes for which a percentage goes to pay for those safety nets. My disagreement with you is regarding that "rich people" (for which I am not) should pay a larger percentage based solely on the fact that YOU believe that it is fair. Fair is a subjective term here which I hope you understand.
I believe that everyone should pay the same percentage...period. To me that is fair. What you are proposing I believe is unfair. Just because someone makes more money does not entitle YOU to say that they should pay a higher percentage because YOU feel that they can afford it.
First off, nice tone there. I did read your comment, but my guess is that you did not understand what my comment was attempting to convey so I will give it a shot again.
While I do agree that the graduated tax system does not present a cap on your income, it does penalize you the more you make though. Now regarding your comment that the "rich" should pay their fair share, I am curious as to what their fair share is. Who says what their fair share is? You? Me? Who? What does represent "their fair share? 30%? 40%? 50% of their income?
The last time I checked, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of total federal taxes, and the top 1% pay 39% of total federal taxes.
How are "the rich" more of a burden on such items as law enforcement? Are you telling me that the police don't protect your home? Your place of employment? Your car? When I was delivering pizzas to put myself through school, I saw a police presence far more in depressed areas than where "the rich" live. Where do most of the crimes happen?
It is a shame that you have fallen victim to class envy because if will hold you back from becoming a success in anything you desire. Now what I find ironic is that if you do end up fighting through to find our financial freedom, you will eventually see where I am right. You will see where you were one who took the risks and sacrificed, and you are the one who should enjoy the rewards of your success.
No it is not a win-win situation. What you are practicing is Robin Hood economics which teaches class envy. Saying that it is "Ok" to tax the rich more takes away the incentive for most people to advance since most "rich" people are not associated with a corporation: they are just employees of a corporation.
The system in the U.S. basically incentive-based, and you taking away the incentive because it is going into the pocket of the government and not in the pocket of the person working harder or taking the risk to advance.
Not sure if this helps or hurts, but here is why I mainly only hire developers with degrees: it shows dedication. It might not be the best practice, but being able to "stick it out" shows me that you have the tenacity to stay with a problem and find ways around your shortcomings to succeed because many times, a project throws you in situations where your education will let you down, but you still need to succeed.
Please note that I said "mainly" because I do realize that there people that do not fit in the normal mold, but they are found very quickly usually through references from friends/family in the field.
And on the other side of the spectrum, you have ACORN which is turning in tens of thousands of fraudulent registration forms in a multiple states.
Hey, The Tick cartoons are some of the funniest I have ever seen. How can you not laugh at his war cry "SPOON"!
Is is "OK" to agree, but that does not make it true. Please look back through history, and the first action dictators perform is to take away all weapons from their soon-to-be subjects. Why you ask, will, it sure as heck is more difficult to revolt when you don't have weapons.
The second amendment was not there to help aid in place of a standing army. It was there to allow U.S. citizens to effectively revolt against government leaders that attempted to subjugate the voters.
Well, no it didn't happen. In each case the person in question won the majority of the electoral college which is how you become the President.
Now I am assuming you are attempting to reference the Florida issue, and if you were to do a little research you would find that the non-partisan sponsored recounts showed that that the candidate in question did win the popular vote from Florida.
That might not be necessarily true. If the manufacturing technique required to produce such items does not scale well, then the demand could go through the roof, but the costs will also.
The only problem with wind and solar is that where does the electricity come during the night or when the wind patterns are low. Our current storage technology (i.e. really large battery banks) just does not provide the efficiencies and costs that are required. The demand will still be there, and you have to plan on providing for that demand.
I do like those technologies to help offset the demand, but you just can't count on them for steady supply in my opinion.
You are close to how it works but off by just "this much".
The actual PIN is never seen "in the clear". What is transmitted is what they call the encrypted PIN block which uses encryption keys stored in the ATM and are unique for each ATM. What this means is that you could only withdrawal money from that card and using that single ATM if you can view the message between the ATM and the host. The host then sends an encrypted pin verification key as well as the encrypted PIN block to a hardware device that reports strictly whether the PIN is good or bad.
I have a feeling that the crooks were able to get a large volume of track data reads for many cards, and the only real place to get those is if the host software is violating PCI regulations and logging track data to some type of persistent data storage (database or disk file).
The problem with your statement is that you assume that all management is bad in that they will always treat their employees like crap. Well guess what, that is not true. Actually the five companies that I have worked for in the past all would have gladly paid that money so I am not sure why you are so bitter.