That dastardly Obama and his accomplice, George W. Bush, who signed it into law in December of 2008 before Obama was in office. The union vote would have certainly gone to the Republicans had Obama not intervened!
The auto bailout was stupid, and although Bush had little to no choice, (Why veto a bailout that's going to get signed a month later, and cost more because of the wait?), the idea that it was to secure the union vote when signed into law AFTER Obama was elected but BEFORE he took office is absurd. The Democrats had the union vote already, and they'll have it this year, too. No action necessary. The Republicans don't even want the union vote. Yes, additional, larger bailouts were approved afterwards by Obama, but again, he already had their votes, and would still have them now even if he didn't bail out the automakers.
I wasn't aware of that, if it is true. Do you have a link to back that up? I'm not being an asshole, I'm genuinely curious. It may make sense, and be a part of the reason that pirated CDs for personal use are sometimes confiscated by customs (from luggage, obviously there's good reason to confiscate from parcels).
Jesus Christ that's expensive. I was going to recommend Astraweb, but it looks like you are probably using them already. You're doing yourself a disservice for not buying in bulk.
You're paying 40c per GB. 180GB at $25 is 13.4c per GB, and 1 TB at $50 is 5c per GB.
Also, I find Usenet to be terrible without binsearch.info, and amazing with nzbmatrix.
The only part that is speculation is that it's believed that JP Morgan didn't need the money. I'd say based on the current health of the company, it's a pretty safe bet. The fact that JP Morgan has paid back TARP money is beyond question.
He's probably referring to what's mentioned below. Last two paragraphs. GM paid back the cash portion of the bailout with the cash that was held in escrow. I think this piece is a little shaky, it appears they just gave the cash part of the loan back unspent. Regardless, it doesn't matter, since most of the true bailout was with a stock purchase. I am not a fan of the GM bailout. The idea that 1,000,000 automaker related jobs were at risk is absurd. If a GM dealership shuts down, they aren't going to sit, worthless for the foreseeable future; they are going to turn into Honda dealerships. This is the case with aftermarket parts manufacturers, domestic-only auto shops (a rarity these days), and other "automaker related jobs." The bailout was made for emotional, overly-nationalistic reasons. A large number of "foreign" cars aren't made in poorer countries like China and Mexico, they are made in poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama.
They got a fair interest rate. They borrowed $25B, and paid it back 7 months and 20 days later. The revenue to the government was $1.7 B.
It was preferred stock with a 5% dividend, with warrants attached. This basically means the banks sold stock to the government with a required, 5% dividend. The government also received warrants, which allow them to purchase additional common stock at a predetermined price (These warrants were dilutive, that is, existing shareholders pay for the government's profit when they are exercised). The banks "repaid" the loans by buying back the preferred stock. The government was then left with the ability to buy shares of the banks at a discount if their stock performed well (If the share price was greater than the exercise price of the warrants, the government would purchase the shares at a discount).
TARP was certainly not a sweetheart deal. Bernanke and Paulson (Not Geithner) sat in a room and basically said they were going to offer the banks the loans, but it was all or nothing. If anyone refused to take the loans, no banks would be able to borrow. Any bank that had refused would have gone down in history as "The bank that vetoed the bailout." Payback was also forcibly delayed. The idea was that if half of the banks took loans and half didn't, the market would panic, selling the banks that took loans and buying the banks that didn't. This would have caused the bailout to fail immediately, and, in fact, have the opposite of the desired effect.
I guess to answer your question; yes, I have an opinion.
In GM's case, yes, it was an accounting trick. In JP Morgan's case, Goldman's Case, and in the case of several other banks, it's not. All of the big banks were forced to take loans from TARP; many of them didn't want to. It's widely believed that JP Morgan was among the banks that did not need or want the loans, and has therefore almost certainly paid them all back.
If you don't believe me, please, prove me wrong. Provide some evidence that JP Morgan still owes the government money, even on gross. (On net, I would be willing to bet they are owed money, due to treasury holdings).
I'll take 95% of the variety and 0% of the liability, seems an apt tradeoff. And at least with Usenet, it's either there or it's not. I don't have to deal with 1 seed on an obscure movie that started seeding two years ago. I get full speed.
Nope. It's not even illegal in the US. Almost all methods of distributing copyrighted material require downloaders to upload, but not usenet. You can leech to your heart's content, and you are breaking no laws. Copyright infringement is not legally theft, and there is no equivalent (yet) of "receiving stolen property." Infringing on copyright is providing someone a copy they are not entitled to. There is only one criminal in that transaction, not two.
Ditch torrents entirely. Usenet is much, much better, faster, and is really quite cheap. It is also completely legal for the downloader, though the moral implications are identical to torrenting. SABnzbd+ is fantastic.
UBS' customers were hammering the "buy" button, UBS forwarded that along to NASDAQ, NASDAQ responded with "BRB," UBS' customers canceled all of the button mashing trades, NASDAQ delivered all of the trades, without regard to those that were canceled. UBS is right that they shouldn't be on the hook for the losses, since it was NASDAQ that caused the problem.
Or at least they would have been right, if they hadn't signed a contract limiting NASDAQ's liability to a pittance. Regardless, clients were made whole, and the only ones who will be harmed by this should have known their protection from this type of loss was limited.
By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free.
A billion dollar write down means BB anticipates selling the devices for a billion dollars less. This is where future consumers gain. (unless the billion represents devices that will be discarded)
I was under the impression that Netflix and Amazon had no ads, whereas Hulu has ads. Not that it matters to me, I'm a Hulu Plus user, and I happily skip all ads.
These days it's hard to tell the difference between real idiocy and humor via absurdity. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, most non-ducks will assume you are a duck.
Slashdot Mirror
That dastardly Obama and his accomplice, George W. Bush, who signed it into law in December of 2008 before Obama was in office. The union vote would have certainly gone to the Republicans had Obama not intervened!
The auto bailout was stupid, and although Bush had little to no choice, (Why veto a bailout that's going to get signed a month later, and cost more because of the wait?), the idea that it was to secure the union vote when signed into law AFTER Obama was elected but BEFORE he took office is absurd. The Democrats had the union vote already, and they'll have it this year, too. No action necessary. The Republicans don't even want the union vote. Yes, additional, larger bailouts were approved afterwards by Obama, but again, he already had their votes, and would still have them now even if he didn't bail out the automakers.
I wasn't aware of that, if it is true. Do you have a link to back that up? I'm not being an asshole, I'm genuinely curious. It may make sense, and be a part of the reason that pirated CDs for personal use are sometimes confiscated by customs (from luggage, obviously there's good reason to confiscate from parcels).
Jesus Christ that's expensive. I was going to recommend Astraweb, but it looks like you are probably using them already. You're doing yourself a disservice for not buying in bulk.
You're paying 40c per GB. 180GB at $25 is 13.4c per GB, and 1 TB at $50 is 5c per GB.
Also, I find Usenet to be terrible without binsearch.info, and amazing with nzbmatrix.
The only part that is speculation is that it's believed that JP Morgan didn't need the money. I'd say based on the current health of the company, it's a pretty safe bet. The fact that JP Morgan has paid back TARP money is beyond question.
He's probably referring to what's mentioned below. Last two paragraphs. GM paid back the cash portion of the bailout with the cash that was held in escrow. I think this piece is a little shaky, it appears they just gave the cash part of the loan back unspent. Regardless, it doesn't matter, since most of the true bailout was with a stock purchase. I am not a fan of the GM bailout. The idea that 1,000,000 automaker related jobs were at risk is absurd. If a GM dealership shuts down, they aren't going to sit, worthless for the foreseeable future; they are going to turn into Honda dealerships. This is the case with aftermarket parts manufacturers, domestic-only auto shops (a rarity these days), and other "automaker related jobs." The bailout was made for emotional, overly-nationalistic reasons. A large number of "foreign" cars aren't made in poorer countries like China and Mexico, they are made in poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
They got a fair interest rate. They borrowed $25B, and paid it back 7 months and 20 days later. The revenue to the government was $1.7 B.
It was preferred stock with a 5% dividend, with warrants attached. This basically means the banks sold stock to the government with a required, 5% dividend. The government also received warrants, which allow them to purchase additional common stock at a predetermined price (These warrants were dilutive, that is, existing shareholders pay for the government's profit when they are exercised). The banks "repaid" the loans by buying back the preferred stock. The government was then left with the ability to buy shares of the banks at a discount if their stock performed well (If the share price was greater than the exercise price of the warrants, the government would purchase the shares at a discount).
TARP was certainly not a sweetheart deal. Bernanke and Paulson (Not Geithner) sat in a room and basically said they were going to offer the banks the loans, but it was all or nothing. If anyone refused to take the loans, no banks would be able to borrow. Any bank that had refused would have gone down in history as "The bank that vetoed the bailout." Payback was also forcibly delayed. The idea was that if half of the banks took loans and half didn't, the market would panic, selling the banks that took loans and buying the banks that didn't. This would have caused the bailout to fail immediately, and, in fact, have the opposite of the desired effect.
I guess to answer your question; yes, I have an opinion.
In GM's case, yes, it was an accounting trick. In JP Morgan's case, Goldman's Case, and in the case of several other banks, it's not. All of the big banks were forced to take loans from TARP; many of them didn't want to. It's widely believed that JP Morgan was among the banks that did not need or want the loans, and has therefore almost certainly paid them all back.
If you don't believe me, please, prove me wrong. Provide some evidence that JP Morgan still owes the government money, even on gross. (On net, I would be willing to bet they are owed money, due to treasury holdings).
I'll take 95% of the variety and 0% of the liability, seems an apt tradeoff. And at least with Usenet, it's either there or it's not. I don't have to deal with 1 seed on an obscure movie that started seeding two years ago. I get full speed.
Anyone who subscribes to a usenet provider because of my comment is likely to never post a single thing, and therefore not impact you one bit.
Nope. It's not even illegal in the US. Almost all methods of distributing copyrighted material require downloaders to upload, but not usenet. You can leech to your heart's content, and you are breaking no laws. Copyright infringement is not legally theft, and there is no equivalent (yet) of "receiving stolen property." Infringing on copyright is providing someone a copy they are not entitled to. There is only one criminal in that transaction, not two.
Ditch torrents entirely. Usenet is much, much better, faster, and is really quite cheap. It is also completely legal for the downloader, though the moral implications are identical to torrenting. SABnzbd+ is fantastic.
Thanks for the invitation to your lawn, but I will respectfully decline.
The intelligent thing to do here was make it run without graphic acceleration, etc. Not make it not run at all.
UBS' customers were hammering the "buy" button, UBS forwarded that along to NASDAQ, NASDAQ responded with "BRB," UBS' customers canceled all of the button mashing trades, NASDAQ delivered all of the trades, without regard to those that were canceled. UBS is right that they shouldn't be on the hook for the losses, since it was NASDAQ that caused the problem. Or at least they would have been right, if they hadn't signed a contract limiting NASDAQ's liability to a pittance. Regardless, clients were made whole, and the only ones who will be harmed by this should have known their protection from this type of loss was limited.
Shall we punish them retroactively then? This is a new law, after all.
Interesting statement considering we Americans wrote the Japanese constitution. It's more likely supreme court rulings that set us apart.
QE has ended, they are currently doing Operation Twist, which has no net impact on the money supply. (and is stupid)
By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free.
90% of people don't use WIFI? Are you fucking stupid?
If the best response is to ignore them, why are you replying? Seems that if it were the best response, you would have taken that path.
A billion dollar write down means BB anticipates selling the devices for a billion dollars less. This is where future consumers gain. (unless the billion represents devices that will be discarded)
I was under the impression that Netflix and Amazon had no ads, whereas Hulu has ads. Not that it matters to me, I'm a Hulu Plus user, and I happily skip all ads.
These days it's hard to tell the difference between real idiocy and humor via absurdity. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, most non-ducks will assume you are a duck.
AKA the FuckThePoor Tax.
Saw the Chrome logo, so I tried it in Opera. I'm too lazy to open Safari, so I just assumed it didn't work in Firefox. Sounds logical.