Indeed. "Winny the Pooh" has foe'd me, presumably over that statement. There's no arguing that there is an effective way and an ineffective way to do DRM, and Steam is, regardless of how you feel about it, effective.
The simplest way to explain Steam is that it is DRM done right. If you pirate the game, you get the game for free. But, you lose auto updates, chat client, steam trading, access to servers with anti-cheat features, etc.
It deters piracy by adding value to legally purchased games.
You are thinking of an LLP. An LLC can be an individual. LLC/Ps can also be treated as flow-through for tax purposes, which allows the owners' income to be taxed as personal income only, rather than corporate income, then personal income.
I agree 100%. Ustream should be liable for all medical bills incurred because of the blocking, as well as punitive damages, which usually means treble damages. Once the criminal suits are settled, the civil suits for wrongful death, injury, and emotional distress will start to roll in.
Content created by the US Government or its agencies is automatically public domain. I see no need to thank NASA for following US law, though feel free to thank them for landing on the moon. (Note, the US Government and its agencies are not prohibited from holding copyright on content: the copyright to any content created by contractors is generally assigned to the contracting entity. The government is no exception, though realistically should be. Also, though you have the right to use the source code to any government-created software, the government has no obligation to provide you with that source code.)
Is anyone seriously this flaky? If you decided not to buy because of this, you were likely to change your mind later when you saw am ugly cursor or renamed mspaint or some other nonsense.
I don't think you should be assuming the controls in place in "electric power trading" are indicative of those in the financial sector at large. (For those who may not know, he's talking about Enron). Besides, there are a limited number of counterparties, it's just not possible to diversify all of the risk away.
The issue is not companies that fucked up, it's companies that had large exposure to counterparties that fucked up. A large amount of the bailout money was used as collateral to shore up the banks' creditworthiness. I'm not saying it was a good solution, and without knowing for sure which banks, and how many banks would have turned down the bailout money, it's hard to even form an opinion about it. It's generally believed that Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and State Street would have turned down the money if they could have. In fact, Goldman Sachs subsequently sought additional capital from Warren Buffet just to prove to investors that GS was a good investment (Although they offered Buffet terms that were far beyond what any other investor could have gotten). The link below references internal documents relating to this, can't be bothered to find the original documents.
Wtf, how is everyone paying the same tax rate "real capitalism"? Tax fairness is a completely normative component of economics. And besides, a "flat tax" that everyone pays the same rate is NOT fair in any way. I would be completely screwed if I had to give up half of my income. Warren Buffet? Not so much.
I wasn't entirely comfortable with the situation either, especially considering the bailout was a loan that charged interest. I can't think of any good alternative though. The fact is, if only some banks took the loan, those banks that took the loan would be subject to extreme short pressure.
Interestingly, the google search you linked to does not contain a result for the market value of derivatives. Rather, it only contains a figure for the amount of cash that would have to be transferred if all derivative contracts were triggered simultaneously, a circumstance that is impossible. I wrote up a scenario, but the Company A, B, C, D, etc. just got too onerous. Anyone on/. should be able to do the math on their own. In a closed system, it's impossible for everyone to default at the same time.
Allowing GM to default would have been extremely painful in Michigan; there's no doubt about that. The pain in Michigan would be offset in other parts of the country, and the net would ultimately be positive. But even with the bailout, things in Michigan are bad.
The government should have let GM go through bankruptcy and funded make work programs in Michigan while GM got its house in order (And, likely, got absorbed by another auto manufacturer). Let the free market deal with corporations. When corporations fail, people lose jobs, and wealth is redistributed, naturally, to those who can best use it, namely other, more efficient corporations. In the mean time, the government should be using excess tax dollars (You know, from raising taxes when things are going well, to offset tax cuts in lean times) to fund welfare benefits for those who fall victim to the natural business cycle.
nzbmatrix is not free, but it is worth the money. I think I paid about $10? It may be cheaper now, since it's charged in GBP, and the GBP has fallen since I bought it. The $10 covers 10 years of usage (It was "forever" but their lawyers told them that was a stupid idea). You can't find everything on NZB Matrix, but what you can find is almost never spam. (I have never downloaded spam from NZB Matrix, but it's common on binsearch, which basically indexes everything). If you don't use SABnzbd+ as a client, I recommend you look into it. It's easy to install, easy to set up, and works great.
The risk appetite was so low that banks didn't want to lend anything. The rates they would have required would have been absurd. The market interest rate was one at which nobody would transact. It wasn't so much a subsidy as it was a poorly negotiated loan from a lender that was less concerned about risk and more concerned about the transaction occurring. The market interest rate was not rationally based on default risk, it was based on uncertainty about the market as a whole. The government was the only lender with enough capital (unlimited) to adequately diversify risk away.
I'm only speculating, so I'd wait for a response from him on what he was referring to. I would imagine though, that GM is what he was thinking of, but I defer to him to clarify. Even though the bailouts weren't really related, they happened at pretty much the same time.
The Fed ALWAYS extends short-term loans via the discount window. The Fed gave preferential rates because they had incentives that the private lenders did not -- to lower rates without regard for profit. This was a big story when it came out because everyone screamed "$7.7 trillion" when it was really more like $77 Billion in overnight loans, every night for 100 days (Not real numbers, but the math is the same. $ * days = $7.7 trillion, $7.7 trillion / days = average daily on-loan balance. At NO point did the government have $7.7 trillion at risk). These loans were to stimulate lending at the banks, lending is how banks make their money, so of course, the banks profited from this lending. It was a legitimate story, but the numbers were overblown for dramatic effect, something I would not expect from Bloomberg, and they took some heat for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. "Winny the Pooh" has foe'd me, presumably over that statement. There's no arguing that there is an effective way and an ineffective way to do DRM, and Steam is, regardless of how you feel about it, effective.
I doubt Gabe Newell is familiar with hunger strikes.
The simplest way to explain Steam is that it is DRM done right. If you pirate the game, you get the game for free. But, you lose auto updates, chat client, steam trading, access to servers with anti-cheat features, etc.
It deters piracy by adding value to legally purchased games.
This is more like Dell releasing computers with ReactOS installed. Microsoft would likely have a problem with this.
He's not.
You are thinking of an LLP. An LLC can be an individual. LLC/Ps can also be treated as flow-through for tax purposes, which allows the owners' income to be taxed as personal income only, rather than corporate income, then personal income.
I agree 100%. Ustream should be liable for all medical bills incurred because of the blocking, as well as punitive damages, which usually means treble damages. Once the criminal suits are settled, the civil suits for wrongful death, injury, and emotional distress will start to roll in.
Just like a spiked trap in a doorway.
Also, your mailman opens your door?
Content created by the US Government or its agencies is automatically public domain. I see no need to thank NASA for following US law, though feel free to thank them for landing on the moon. (Note, the US Government and its agencies are not prohibited from holding copyright on content: the copyright to any content created by contractors is generally assigned to the contracting entity. The government is no exception, though realistically should be. Also, though you have the right to use the source code to any government-created software, the government has no obligation to provide you with that source code.)
I came here to say this. A history polymath is like someone who loves his wife so much that he's a polygamist to her.
Is anyone seriously this flaky? If you decided not to buy because of this, you were likely to change your mind later when you saw am ugly cursor or renamed mspaint or some other nonsense.
I don't think you should be assuming the controls in place in "electric power trading" are indicative of those in the financial sector at large. (For those who may not know, he's talking about Enron). Besides, there are a limited number of counterparties, it's just not possible to diversify all of the risk away.
What the hell is this, a poem?
A LOT of financial institutions did exactly that, but not the nine that were told they had no choice.
The issue is not companies that fucked up, it's companies that had large exposure to counterparties that fucked up. A large amount of the bailout money was used as collateral to shore up the banks' creditworthiness. I'm not saying it was a good solution, and without knowing for sure which banks, and how many banks would have turned down the bailout money, it's hard to even form an opinion about it. It's generally believed that Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and State Street would have turned down the money if they could have. In fact, Goldman Sachs subsequently sought additional capital from Warren Buffet just to prove to investors that GS was a good investment (Although they offered Buffet terms that were far beyond what any other investor could have gotten). The link below references internal documents relating to this, can't be bothered to find the original documents.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30750868/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/documents-paulson-forced-banks-bailout/#.UCr7RcWQNqA
Wtf, how is everyone paying the same tax rate "real capitalism"? Tax fairness is a completely normative component of economics. And besides, a "flat tax" that everyone pays the same rate is NOT fair in any way. I would be completely screwed if I had to give up half of my income. Warren Buffet? Not so much.
Not me. Nor would I want to. They are not a good company to work for at my level.
I wasn't entirely comfortable with the situation either, especially considering the bailout was a loan that charged interest. I can't think of any good alternative though. The fact is, if only some banks took the loan, those banks that took the loan would be subject to extreme short pressure.
Interestingly, the google search you linked to does not contain a result for the market value of derivatives. Rather, it only contains a figure for the amount of cash that would have to be transferred if all derivative contracts were triggered simultaneously, a circumstance that is impossible. I wrote up a scenario, but the Company A, B, C, D, etc. just got too onerous. Anyone on /. should be able to do the math on their own. In a closed system, it's impossible for everyone to default at the same time.
Fucking HTML. That post was formatted nicely before I forgot to preview.
Allowing GM to default would have been extremely painful in Michigan; there's no doubt about that. The pain in Michigan would be offset in other parts of the country, and the net would ultimately be positive. But even with the bailout, things in Michigan are bad. The government should have let GM go through bankruptcy and funded make work programs in Michigan while GM got its house in order (And, likely, got absorbed by another auto manufacturer). Let the free market deal with corporations. When corporations fail, people lose jobs, and wealth is redistributed, naturally, to those who can best use it, namely other, more efficient corporations. In the mean time, the government should be using excess tax dollars (You know, from raising taxes when things are going well, to offset tax cuts in lean times) to fund welfare benefits for those who fall victim to the natural business cycle.
I would be shocked if less than 100% of overnight loans weren't paid back.
nzbmatrix is not free, but it is worth the money. I think I paid about $10? It may be cheaper now, since it's charged in GBP, and the GBP has fallen since I bought it. The $10 covers 10 years of usage (It was "forever" but their lawyers told them that was a stupid idea). You can't find everything on NZB Matrix, but what you can find is almost never spam. (I have never downloaded spam from NZB Matrix, but it's common on binsearch, which basically indexes everything). If you don't use SABnzbd+ as a client, I recommend you look into it. It's easy to install, easy to set up, and works great.
The risk appetite was so low that banks didn't want to lend anything. The rates they would have required would have been absurd. The market interest rate was one at which nobody would transact. It wasn't so much a subsidy as it was a poorly negotiated loan from a lender that was less concerned about risk and more concerned about the transaction occurring. The market interest rate was not rationally based on default risk, it was based on uncertainty about the market as a whole. The government was the only lender with enough capital (unlimited) to adequately diversify risk away.
I'm only speculating, so I'd wait for a response from him on what he was referring to. I would imagine though, that GM is what he was thinking of, but I defer to him to clarify. Even though the bailouts weren't really related, they happened at pretty much the same time.
The Fed ALWAYS extends short-term loans via the discount window. The Fed gave preferential rates because they had incentives that the private lenders did not -- to lower rates without regard for profit. This was a big story when it came out because everyone screamed "$7.7 trillion" when it was really more like $77 Billion in overnight loans, every night for 100 days (Not real numbers, but the math is the same. $ * days = $7.7 trillion, $7.7 trillion / days = average daily on-loan balance. At NO point did the government have $7.7 trillion at risk). These loans were to stimulate lending at the banks, lending is how banks make their money, so of course, the banks profited from this lending. It was a legitimate story, but the numbers were overblown for dramatic effect, something I would not expect from Bloomberg, and they took some heat for it.