Back in High School I remember seeing a girl nearly lose a toe to a sharp rock, it cut so deep it went right to the bone. Blood everywhere, shouting, etc.. As long as there are pointy things on the ground, I can risk a broken ankle. Yes, the whole "personal story proves nothing", but what should we learn from if not experience.
And frankly, since that was probably his first contact with Linux, that's actually quite understandable. A machine, that comes with Linux preinstalled, and it won't even run the devices that are built in? That's ridiculous, not to mention unneccessary. It's not as if building a Linux with working WiFi was rocket science.
That's been irritating me too. I've been trying to set up a home network using ad-hoc networking (before anyone complains, doesn't matter why, I have reasons) and linux connects if there's at least two other windows computers connected to the network. But if there aren't, it won't connect, at all. Even specifying it's ad-hoc, using different distros, even using OpenSolaris, nothing. It defies description. So can I still use linux? Well, no.
So how come the very latest distributions can't do something windows did with sp2..
none of the private sector submissions to build a National Broadband Network was up to the standard,
Living in Australia at the moment, this phrase doesn't surprise me in the least. The best thing you can say about Telstra is. "Their incompetence is the only thing saving us from their evil.". Right now I'm paying $70 AUD for ADSL2 with a 150GB. There's no fuzziness on what's permissible use either; they do provide 150GB... Telstra on the other hand, for $80 gives 12GB at 1.5Mbit, $100 if you want ADSL2, $160 if you want 60GB. What's worse is that my company rents lines from Telstra, so you'd think they could be AT LEAST as good as their competitors.
How would they go about purchasing Debian? there isn't really a company to buy, or a solidified piece of software/source for that matter to lock up. They could maybe buy out each individual maintainer, but it's already out there, in many mutated forms, it would be a huge nightmare for them to try and rope all of it in, they'd probably go bankrupt in the meantime.
If it's something like Debian, they would go about it by producing something that performs a nearly identical but not so identical as to cause patent issues piece of software in-house. Or if it was under a more lenient license, just copy the code directly.
But if you have something that personal and corporate users prefer over Microsoft's products, then it doesn't matter how low or highly spec'd the machine is, they'll want that software.
Not a bad idea but won't Microsoft simply produce a variant of that software or buy out the company. It wouldn't be a new tactic for them.
If only for this, I think it's unlikely that Microsoft is going away any time soon if only because under even half-competent management, it's basically impossible for them to die.
That's true, but China isn't exactly the most wonderful place in the world right now. I mean didn't we just have a story about their rolling execution vans and how they sell the organs for cash? The horrible allegations they're doing it to religious/political undesirables. I completely agree that you shouldn't force them (The North Koreans) to fight, but the example used in my copy of the art of war was a siege situation; no-one's asking the North Koreans to line up and eat a bullet, what they want is to make sure they aren't extorting money from the world while pulling stunts like kidnapping Americans from China or, back in the old days, civilians from Japan.
I think "Don't build doomsday weapons to use against us" is not an unreasonable demand to someone who has repeatedly threatened you. What makes it worse is that while there will be problems if anyone forces their hand, there will be far more problems if you wait till they have more to force them. If we'd attacked ages ago (just to use an example), Seul would be heavily damaged, but we wouldn't be worrying about a North Korean nuclear threat right now.
Note that I'm not advocating military action, that's the last thing I want, especially since China would have something to say. But can't someone do something about this, what about negotiating with the Chinese to make them toughen down on these people. There must be more options than "war" and "do nothing".
Another thing it says in the Art of War is that the most skilled general attacks the enemy's Strategy, defusing problems before they become apparent. A "let's not wait till the last moment" philosophy.
I think it's silly how people constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk from their lives instead of just getting out there and living it. I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer about as attractive as living in a big plastic bubble. But hey if what you want out of modern medicine is to be protected by layer after layer of prophylactics so you can feel safe, by all means go for it.
I disagree completely. I love being alive and I want to do as much as possible. Also, I don't equate being alive with being in danger. Therefore, if something will improve my survival without having a negative impact on the rest of my life then I'm all for it.
If you really must have danger then look at it this way, you now have the opportunity to try the maximum amount of legal and illegal drugs to the fullest extent that your body can take. You'll instantly know when you've hit your limit.
You mean they're covering 6-800 Billion or that the expected pay out of what they're covering is 6-800 Billion USD!? If it's the former then the expected payout is going to be far smaller and is going to occur over a protracted period. The 200 Billion should cover it. If the expected payout is that high then the US must just be one whole mass of charred earth, derelict follies (aka skyscrapers) and broken infrastructure.
Are also those risks premium-paid or is there opportunity to collect a little back in the short term. Also could the government consider something like an additional 5% premium to secure the insurance - this would sink some projects for sure (the sickest companies?), others would run at a loss (but save the companies) and some would perhaps only break even, but I'd guess others would still profit. The margin on a toll way, given the risks and capital investment, must be pretty large.
No clue, I'm just an internet pundit. Long term economic plans are left for people who know what they're talking about. However, if the payout was below 200 billion, the government could have just bought all the contracts outright.
Really the main goal of the government is to stop AIG from collapsing, and by extension, all the banking infrastructure AIG is holding up. I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously, however the main thing AIG insures that we're worried about is Banks, the same banks that are so over-stretched they can't loan out any money. If the banks go down, everyone loses their savings, if people try to withdraw their savings, the banks will go down. Things are made somewhat easier by the fact that AIG is insuring all those accounts.
If AIG goes down, so do all those guarantees of safety, which means people are likely to withdraw their money.
If the government didn't want rescued companies to spend money on bonuses, then that should have been a condition for the bailout money. Bailing out failing companies gives the government a perfect opportunity to set criteria and make demands of a company that would otherwise have gone bankrupt.
You're right. However it WAS a condition, if I remember correctly. I'm not certain but I believe that was ruled to not apply in this case, because the bonuses were arranged before the bailout. The rationale for the government's actions is that they (AIG) didn't give out the bonuses beforehand, they waited until they had the taxpayer's money in hand to do it.
Although the big bonuses for a failing company are disgusting, this new tax law is just wrong on too many levels.
This doesn't exactly fill me with the warm and fuzzies either. However while I enjoy the relentless paranoia of "the government has it in for us" just as much as the next man, I do believe that during a time of crisis, it's important for us to pull together. So I'm backing them up 100%. If that means a tax law that has the potential to catch us rectally... Well we had the potential to rally and get sane legislation voted in beforehand, but no-one bothered. So this is as much our fault as it is that of politicians.
Actually there's more to it than that. If I had to be honest, I'd say that seeing this thing pass fills me with quiet joy. Mostly because it sends a clear message that hiding inside loopholes while the country crumbles around you will not be tolerated. If any other company contemplates attempting to subvert the law with loopholes, they will hopefully think twice.
I'm all for saving vital functions of the economy, but giving away billions for free with no conditions what so ever is just stupid.
You won't find disagreement here. We should have learned why deregulation is a bad idea years ago, with Enron. If you give 100 people massive power, and ONE turns out to be corrupt, you'll find their massive power can do previously un-contemplated damage before they're brought to heel. It's not that power corrupts, but that power makes the corrupt more dangerous. Feel free to substitute "power" with "freedom from oversight".
you imply some connection between aig demise and poor people suffering. the connection is apparently so obvious that no one so far was able to actually explain it. would you care to?
If that offer's open to anyone, I'd like to take a shot.
What it comes down to is that AIG is currently insuring a large part of the world's banks. If you're poor then you don't really have all that much money, presumably what there is of it is in a single bank account. One of the ones insured by AIG. If AIG goes down all those banks are no longer such safe bets, which is likely to make a run on at least some of them. The banks themselves don't have nearly enough money to pay off everyone who thinks it has money in them, they never had but especially not lately since they've overstretched beyond the legal limits imposed on them. If a run happens and enough people try to withdraw their money all at once, the banks go down and everyone who wasn't fist in line loses everything in their accounts. If you're wealthy you have multiple banks, trust funds and other assets you can sell to live on for a while; however the poor don't have that option.
This is less of a problem in America, because the government guarantees bank accounts itself at the moment, however AIG insures banks worldwide, especially in the UK.
What Congress should have done is put an absolute ceiling on the bonus size. $10,000 max, for example, or less. That's for a *bonus*, we're not even talking about the regular pay here. How many people do you think make $10,000 a year, and *haven't* destroyed the economy in the process?
I agree completely, although even with the current cap, which I keep forgetting, something like $300,000, people keep complaining they're improperly rewarded. Really when you're getting paid millions a year, any bonus that small is barely a blip. The main irritation is they're getting performance bonuses with the government's bailout money.
I'm not sure which sense of "underwrite" you're using here?
Insurance, that's what AIG does. People are surprisingly unwilling to ship 10+Million$ worth of goods on a single freighter unless they feel reasonably sure that it's insured if it goes down or is taken by pirates or whatnot. AIG provides the giant net that lets people conduct business with peace of mind. People would still do business, but they would be far more unwilling to do things with even some risk as long as there's a chance they could lose their company to a single incident of bad luck.
Well doesn't 200 Billion buy you enough projects to keep things moving? Once you've serviced those companies you can pass the debts on to others. Think of the 200 Billion as a bridging loan. Instead that money has been passed on to people who are doing everything in their power to grab as much money as possible whilst they run away. None of that money is going to be used to enable these large scale projects - it simply won't be there in the banks to be leant.
I'm fairly certain that AiG has more than 200 Billion in insurance outstanding, somewhere around 600-800 billion is what I've heard. The idea being that as long as the government can keep AIG afloat, all those contracts are still valid and no-one will do anything panicky.
If you pay it out on these large scale projects you mention - instead of paying it to the banks and hoping one day they might - (and you do it properly) you don't even lose the money, it gets paid back with profits.
Even if they were in a situation to do that, the government doesn't have the experience or the staff to do something like that properly. While the banks are already set up to deal with this, the governments would be starting from scratch and would fare badly for a while until they got up to speed, it wouldn't be as efficient as you suggest.
I guess that "bonus tax" is currently limited to just those who earn 500,000 or higher, but then so too was the income tax when it was originally conceived. And then it creeped downward.
Those who earn 500,000 and higher AND those who work for a business that is over 79% owned by the government. They don't care about companies giving out massive performance bonuses, but they don't want it when the company's only staying alive due to government aid.
If they had failed, a dozen other companies would have risen to offer the same services, but in competition with each other. There would have been a short period of pain - the birds that nest in the tree would have been put out, the apes that ate its fruit would have to look elsewhere, etc, but it would have been okay.
Eventually yes, but since these guys basically underwrite much of the large scale transportation and manufacturing going on in the world; their fall takes a large chunk of the world's industry with it. That "short period" of pain could be as bad as the great depression was, that's exactly what the American leadership dreams about in their nightmares lately. Which is the sole reason they're baling these idiots out.
The bonuses are unseemly, true, but they seem to be guaranteed by the employee contracts, and so all the yelling in the world by unhinged congressmen are not going to change anything. Plus, financially, they're an insignificant part of the bailout moneys. I wouldn't mind businesses reeling in the bonus amounts in the future, because of public wrath, but I fear that congress is preparing the public to ram through something like even more punitive taxes.
Then is it just me that noticed a 90% tax rate bill actually get passed just a while ago; 90%, specifically to tax these bonuses. It looks like their anger is changing quite a bit.
We KNEW AIG were crooks long before we gave them this money. Why did they do it? Where the fuck was the outrage when these bailouts were first suggested? I've been outraged since the beginning, because the whole game plan has been obvious to me since they robbed us of that first $700B. And yet polls suggest that Americans STILL think this is going to work somehow.
Were you high? The outrage was EVERYWHERE, eventually however people decided that the possibility of losing their bank accounts was worth the massive irritation in bailing out these losers. We've had this debate before and others, including myself; collectively decided to grit our teeth and do it because it was necessary. Remember the bailout was actually shot down the first time it was proposed.
These people: the Congress, the President, AIG, are all just a bunch of god damned frat boys, scratching each other's backs and doling out our tax money to each other in such staggering volumes that it WILL be the end of this country if we don't stop right now.
Wow, all of them; congratulations you've opened my eyes to the MASSIVE CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOU. Even the guy who wasn't around till 49 days or so earlier; he's in it too. Me I prefer the far more sane explanation, he and the rest of the cabinet are trying to prop up a bunch of retards determined to decimate themselves by any means possible. Really any sort of conspiracy would basically require the participants to be intelligent and wise; the idea that this bunch of idiots are actually part of anything more complicated than feeding and using the toilets is pretty far-fetched.
That does make it somewhat feasible, but how much will it download overall? For example, assuming that I'd have to actually pay by the GB for bandwith, could I afford to do this?
Not like this is the first time something like this happened. Wasn't there one story where the family of an executive officer of the RIAA was accused of this and he pushed the company to let them off with a warning?
The problem is that the average person isn't going to have the proper resources to actually get anything done about it. Pick someone who doesn't know how internet tech works, plaster a load of life-ruining "facts" about them online, and get them ranked to the top of google. For many people, doing this to them could literally ruin the rest of their life, removing any ability to land a proper career.
The real problem is the people who would trust something said completely anonymously over the internet. There's an old joke that goes "This is a man who wouldn't trust his mates if they told him the sky was blue with signed affendavits from both the pope and his own mother but would trust something whispered to him by a complete stranger in a bar."
Just another reason why capitalism fails. The public-facing side of any single company is considered far more important than the life of any individual. Way to go mankind.
Because if you were looking for baby-sitters and there were rumors that the individual you were screening had inappropriate contact with children, you'd totally hire them; because hey they're just rumors right? Completely ignoring something just because it isn't fully backed up is equally stupid; because you seldom have ALL the right information for any decision. I feel dumber just for saying this but it's important for companies to give weight to their sources, not just believe or disregard everything.
Seriously. Some of you seem awfully touchy. Do you feel guilty about something? Do you think I'm suggesting your preferences are somehow inferior? Figure out what you're arguing with, then figure out whether that's really what I said.
Wow you are so spectacularly offensive, and yet if I called you out out on it using the proper language; I would be marked flame bait.
Firstly you ARE suggesting their preferences are inferior; by telling us you hate it and that you wouldn't let your children touch it; you're implying that their preferences are dangerous for children, unlike yours which are pure. Many people would be offended by that and look, they are.
Otherwise, you appear to be arguing that historical accuracy is better because it is educational. Really? Instructional value should be a central concern in game design? Do tell.
Because being shielded from the truth of the world is bad; in every way. Without proper information, you cannot make correct decisions. By shielding people, especially children who don't know better, from seeing the world; you're creating a situation where they'll go out into reality without being aware of how it works.
Mostly though I'm irritated because censoring all conflict and violence from your kids is deceptive and shallow. As if hiding suffering in the world will make it go away.
Re: governance, I would like to point you towards a recent statement by our new president in which he said something along the lines of, "Debate's nice and all, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pass the legislation I want you to pass." Translation: "Democracy, shemocracy, blah blah blah!"
I can actually empathize with that. If they're all talking and no-one's making any cohesive points, you'd want them to get on with it already.
I live right outside of Washington, D.C., and if I couldn't walk around at night in my apartment for fear of poisonous, deadly varmints holing up in my Nikes the last thing I would be is complacent.
It's not that bad, I had a spider in my shoe once and trust me, when you put you're foot in, it's vastly more stuffed than you are.
Are you somehow implying that I'm against renewable energy in any shape or form? Whereas the article is saying it's unsustainable; I said that it's a given it will be achieved. I'm not seeing your point.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this not a form of cheating?
Because they did the work...
Similar to using caffeine to stay up through the night before the exam. What matters is how much work you do, not how you do it.
Back in High School I remember seeing a girl nearly lose a toe to a sharp rock, it cut so deep it went right to the bone. Blood everywhere, shouting, etc.. As long as there are pointy things on the ground, I can risk a broken ankle. Yes, the whole "personal story proves nothing", but what should we learn from if not experience.
And frankly, since that was probably his first contact with Linux, that's actually quite understandable. A machine, that comes with Linux preinstalled, and it won't even run the devices that are built in? That's ridiculous, not to mention unneccessary. It's not as if building a Linux with working WiFi was rocket science.
That's been irritating me too. I've been trying to set up a home network using ad-hoc networking (before anyone complains, doesn't matter why, I have reasons) and linux connects if there's at least two other windows computers connected to the network. But if there aren't, it won't connect, at all. Even specifying it's ad-hoc, using different distros, even using OpenSolaris, nothing. It defies description. So can I still use linux? Well, no.
So how come the very latest distributions can't do something windows did with sp2..
none of the private sector submissions to build a National Broadband Network was up to the standard,
Living in Australia at the moment, this phrase doesn't surprise me in the least. The best thing you can say about Telstra is. "Their incompetence is the only thing saving us from their evil.". Right now I'm paying $70 AUD for ADSL2 with a 150GB. There's no fuzziness on what's permissible use either; they do provide 150GB... Telstra on the other hand, for $80 gives 12GB at 1.5Mbit, $100 if you want ADSL2, $160 if you want 60GB. What's worse is that my company rents lines from Telstra, so you'd think they could be AT LEAST as good as their competitors.
How would they go about purchasing Debian? there isn't really a company to buy, or a solidified piece of software/source for that matter to lock up. They could maybe buy out each individual maintainer, but it's already out there, in many mutated forms, it would be a huge nightmare for them to try and rope all of it in, they'd probably go bankrupt in the meantime.
If it's something like Debian, they would go about it by producing something that performs a nearly identical but not so identical as to cause patent issues piece of software in-house. Or if it was under a more lenient license, just copy the code directly.
But if you have something that personal and corporate users prefer over Microsoft's products, then it doesn't matter how low or highly spec'd the machine is, they'll want that software.
Not a bad idea but won't Microsoft simply produce a variant of that software or buy out the company. It wouldn't be a new tactic for them.
If only for this, I think it's unlikely that Microsoft is going away any time soon if only because under even half-competent management, it's basically impossible for them to die.
That's true, but China isn't exactly the most wonderful place in the world right now. I mean didn't we just have a story about their rolling execution vans and how they sell the organs for cash? The horrible allegations they're doing it to religious/political undesirables. I completely agree that you shouldn't force them (The North Koreans) to fight, but the example used in my copy of the art of war was a siege situation; no-one's asking the North Koreans to line up and eat a bullet, what they want is to make sure they aren't extorting money from the world while pulling stunts like kidnapping Americans from China or, back in the old days, civilians from Japan.
I think "Don't build doomsday weapons to use against us" is not an unreasonable demand to someone who has repeatedly threatened you. What makes it worse is that while there will be problems if anyone forces their hand, there will be far more problems if you wait till they have more to force them. If we'd attacked ages ago (just to use an example), Seul would be heavily damaged, but we wouldn't be worrying about a North Korean nuclear threat right now.
Note that I'm not advocating military action, that's the last thing I want, especially since China would have something to say. But can't someone do something about this, what about negotiating with the Chinese to make them toughen down on these people. There must be more options than "war" and "do nothing".
Another thing it says in the Art of War is that the most skilled general attacks the enemy's Strategy, defusing problems before they become apparent. A "let's not wait till the last moment" philosophy.
I think it's silly how people constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk from their lives instead of just getting out there and living it. I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer about as attractive as living in a big plastic bubble. But hey if what you want out of modern medicine is to be protected by layer after layer of prophylactics so you can feel safe, by all means go for it.
I disagree completely. I love being alive and I want to do as much as possible. Also, I don't equate being alive with being in danger. Therefore, if something will improve my survival without having a negative impact on the rest of my life then I'm all for it.
If you really must have danger then look at it this way, you now have the opportunity to try the maximum amount of legal and illegal drugs to the fullest extent that your body can take. You'll instantly know when you've hit your limit.
AIG do insurance, who knew ... ;0)>
You mean they're covering 6-800 Billion or that the expected pay out of what they're covering is 6-800 Billion USD!? If it's the former then the expected payout is going to be far smaller and is going to occur over a protracted period. The 200 Billion should cover it. If the expected payout is that high then the US must just be one whole mass of charred earth, derelict follies (aka skyscrapers) and broken infrastructure.
Are also those risks premium-paid or is there opportunity to collect a little back in the short term. Also could the government consider something like an additional 5% premium to secure the insurance - this would sink some projects for sure (the sickest companies?), others would run at a loss (but save the companies) and some would perhaps only break even, but I'd guess others would still profit. The margin on a toll way, given the risks and capital investment, must be pretty large.
No clue, I'm just an internet pundit. Long term economic plans are left for people who know what they're talking about. However, if the payout was below 200 billion, the government could have just bought all the contracts outright.
Really the main goal of the government is to stop AIG from collapsing, and by extension, all the banking infrastructure AIG is holding up. I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously, however the main thing AIG insures that we're worried about is Banks, the same banks that are so over-stretched they can't loan out any money. If the banks go down, everyone loses their savings, if people try to withdraw their savings, the banks will go down. Things are made somewhat easier by the fact that AIG is insuring all those accounts.
If AIG goes down, so do all those guarantees of safety, which means people are likely to withdraw their money.
If the government didn't want rescued companies to spend money on bonuses, then that should have been a condition for the bailout money. Bailing out failing companies gives the government a perfect opportunity to set criteria and make demands of a company that would otherwise have gone bankrupt.
You're right. However it WAS a condition, if I remember correctly. I'm not certain but I believe that was ruled to not apply in this case, because the bonuses were arranged before the bailout. The rationale for the government's actions is that they (AIG) didn't give out the bonuses beforehand, they waited until they had the taxpayer's money in hand to do it.
Although the big bonuses for a failing company are disgusting, this new tax law is just wrong on too many levels.
This doesn't exactly fill me with the warm and fuzzies either. However while I enjoy the relentless paranoia of "the government has it in for us" just as much as the next man, I do believe that during a time of crisis, it's important for us to pull together. So I'm backing them up 100%. If that means a tax law that has the potential to catch us rectally... Well we had the potential to rally and get sane legislation voted in beforehand, but no-one bothered. So this is as much our fault as it is that of politicians.
Actually there's more to it than that. If I had to be honest, I'd say that seeing this thing pass fills me with quiet joy. Mostly because it sends a clear message that hiding inside loopholes while the country crumbles around you will not be tolerated. If any other company contemplates attempting to subvert the law with loopholes, they will hopefully think twice.
I'm all for saving vital functions of the economy, but giving away billions for free with no conditions what so ever is just stupid.
You won't find disagreement here. We should have learned why deregulation is a bad idea years ago, with Enron. If you give 100 people massive power, and ONE turns out to be corrupt, you'll find their massive power can do previously un-contemplated damage before they're brought to heel. It's not that power corrupts, but that power makes the corrupt more dangerous. Feel free to substitute "power" with "freedom from oversight".
you imply some connection between aig demise and poor people suffering. the connection is apparently so obvious that no one so far was able to actually explain it. would you care to?
If that offer's open to anyone, I'd like to take a shot.
What it comes down to is that AIG is currently insuring a large part of the world's banks. If you're poor then you don't really have all that much money, presumably what there is of it is in a single bank account. One of the ones insured by AIG. If AIG goes down all those banks are no longer such safe bets, which is likely to make a run on at least some of them. The banks themselves don't have nearly enough money to pay off everyone who thinks it has money in them, they never had but especially not lately since they've overstretched beyond the legal limits imposed on them. If a run happens and enough people try to withdraw their money all at once, the banks go down and everyone who wasn't fist in line loses everything in their accounts. If you're wealthy you have multiple banks, trust funds and other assets you can sell to live on for a while; however the poor don't have that option.
This is less of a problem in America, because the government guarantees bank accounts itself at the moment, however AIG insures banks worldwide, especially in the UK.
What Congress should have done is put an absolute ceiling on the bonus size. $10,000 max, for example, or less. That's for a *bonus*, we're not even talking about the regular pay here. How many people do you think make $10,000 a year, and *haven't* destroyed the economy in the process?
I agree completely, although even with the current cap, which I keep forgetting, something like $300,000, people keep complaining they're improperly rewarded. Really when you're getting paid millions a year, any bonus that small is barely a blip. The main irritation is they're getting performance bonuses with the government's bailout money.
I'm not sure which sense of "underwrite" you're using here?
Insurance, that's what AIG does. People are surprisingly unwilling to ship 10+Million$ worth of goods on a single freighter unless they feel reasonably sure that it's insured if it goes down or is taken by pirates or whatnot. AIG provides the giant net that lets people conduct business with peace of mind. People would still do business, but they would be far more unwilling to do things with even some risk as long as there's a chance they could lose their company to a single incident of bad luck.
Well doesn't 200 Billion buy you enough projects to keep things moving? Once you've serviced those companies you can pass the debts on to others. Think of the 200 Billion as a bridging loan. Instead that money has been passed on to people who are doing everything in their power to grab as much money as possible whilst they run away. None of that money is going to be used to enable these large scale projects - it simply won't be there in the banks to be leant.
I'm fairly certain that AiG has more than 200 Billion in insurance outstanding, somewhere around 600-800 billion is what I've heard. The idea being that as long as the government can keep AIG afloat, all those contracts are still valid and no-one will do anything panicky.
If you pay it out on these large scale projects you mention - instead of paying it to the banks and hoping one day they might - (and you do it properly) you don't even lose the money, it gets paid back with profits.
Even if they were in a situation to do that, the government doesn't have the experience or the staff to do something like that properly. While the banks are already set up to deal with this, the governments would be starting from scratch and would fare badly for a while until they got up to speed, it wouldn't be as efficient as you suggest.
I guess that "bonus tax" is currently limited to just those who earn 500,000 or higher, but then so too was the income tax when it was originally conceived. And then it creeped downward.
Those who earn 500,000 and higher AND those who work for a business that is over 79% owned by the government. They don't care about companies giving out massive performance bonuses, but they don't want it when the company's only staying alive due to government aid.
If they had failed, a dozen other companies would have risen to offer the same services, but in competition with each other. There would have been a short period of pain - the birds that nest in the tree would have been put out, the apes that ate its fruit would have to look elsewhere, etc, but it would have been okay.
Eventually yes, but since these guys basically underwrite much of the large scale transportation and manufacturing going on in the world; their fall takes a large chunk of the world's industry with it. That "short period" of pain could be as bad as the great depression was, that's exactly what the American leadership dreams about in their nightmares lately. Which is the sole reason they're baling these idiots out.
The bonuses are unseemly, true, but they seem to be guaranteed by the employee contracts, and so all the yelling in the world by unhinged congressmen are not going to change anything. Plus, financially, they're an insignificant part of the bailout moneys. I wouldn't mind businesses reeling in the bonus amounts in the future, because of public wrath, but I fear that congress is preparing the public to ram through something like even more punitive taxes.
Then is it just me that noticed a 90% tax rate bill actually get passed just a while ago; 90%, specifically to tax these bonuses. It looks like their anger is changing quite a bit.
We KNEW AIG were crooks long before we gave them this money. Why did they do it? Where the fuck was the outrage when these bailouts were first suggested? I've been outraged since the beginning, because the whole game plan has been obvious to me since they robbed us of that first $700B. And yet polls suggest that Americans STILL think this is going to work somehow.
Were you high? The outrage was EVERYWHERE, eventually however people decided that the possibility of losing their bank accounts was worth the massive irritation in bailing out these losers. We've had this debate before and others, including myself; collectively decided to grit our teeth and do it because it was necessary. Remember the bailout was actually shot down the first time it was proposed.
These people: the Congress, the President, AIG, are all just a bunch of god damned frat boys, scratching each other's backs and doling out our tax money to each other in such staggering volumes that it WILL be the end of this country if we don't stop right now.
Wow, all of them; congratulations you've opened my eyes to the MASSIVE CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOU. Even the guy who wasn't around till 49 days or so earlier; he's in it too. Me I prefer the far more sane explanation, he and the rest of the cabinet are trying to prop up a bunch of retards determined to decimate themselves by any means possible. Really any sort of conspiracy would basically require the participants to be intelligent and wise; the idea that this bunch of idiots are actually part of anything more complicated than feeding and using the toilets is pretty far-fetched.
That does make it somewhat feasible, but how much will it download overall? For example, assuming that I'd have to actually pay by the GB for bandwith, could I afford to do this?
Not like this is the first time something like this happened. Wasn't there one story where the family of an executive officer of the RIAA was accused of this and he pushed the company to let them off with a warning?
The problem is that the average person isn't going to have the proper resources to actually get anything done about it. Pick someone who doesn't know how internet tech works, plaster a load of life-ruining "facts" about them online, and get them ranked to the top of google. For many people, doing this to them could literally ruin the rest of their life, removing any ability to land a proper career.
The real problem is the people who would trust something said completely anonymously over the internet. There's an old joke that goes "This is a man who wouldn't trust his mates if they told him the sky was blue with signed affendavits from both the pope and his own mother but would trust something whispered to him by a complete stranger in a bar."
Just another reason why capitalism fails. The public-facing side of any single company is considered far more important than the life of any individual. Way to go mankind.
Because if you were looking for baby-sitters and there were rumors that the individual you were screening had inappropriate contact with children, you'd totally hire them; because hey they're just rumors right? Completely ignoring something just because it isn't fully backed up is equally stupid; because you seldom have ALL the right information for any decision. I feel dumber just for saying this but it's important for companies to give weight to their sources, not just believe or disregard everything.
That is quite possibly the best quote I've read so far this month, mind if I use it as a sig?
Seriously. Some of you seem awfully touchy. Do you feel guilty about something? Do you think I'm suggesting your preferences are somehow inferior? Figure out what you're arguing with, then figure out whether that's really what I said.
Wow you are so spectacularly offensive, and yet if I called you out out on it using the proper language; I would be marked flame bait.
Firstly you ARE suggesting their preferences are inferior; by telling us you hate it and that you wouldn't let your children touch it; you're implying that their preferences are dangerous for children, unlike yours which are pure. Many people would be offended by that and look, they are.
Otherwise, you appear to be arguing that historical accuracy is better because it is educational. Really? Instructional value should be a central concern in game design? Do tell.
Because being shielded from the truth of the world is bad; in every way. Without proper information, you cannot make correct decisions. By shielding people, especially children who don't know better, from seeing the world; you're creating a situation where they'll go out into reality without being aware of how it works.
Mostly though I'm irritated because censoring all conflict and violence from your kids is deceptive and shallow. As if hiding suffering in the world will make it go away.
Re: governance, I would like to point you towards a recent statement by our new president in which he said something along the lines of, "Debate's nice and all, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pass the legislation I want you to pass." Translation: "Democracy, shemocracy, blah blah blah!"
I can actually empathize with that. If they're all talking and no-one's making any cohesive points, you'd want them to get on with it already.
I live right outside of Washington, D.C., and if I couldn't walk around at night in my apartment for fear of poisonous, deadly varmints holing up in my Nikes the last thing I would be is complacent.
It's not that bad, I had a spider in my shoe once and trust me, when you put you're foot in, it's vastly more stuffed than you are.
Are you somehow implying that I'm against renewable energy in any shape or form? Whereas the article is saying it's unsustainable; I said that it's a given it will be achieved. I'm not seeing your point.
I think I just took 36d6 of sarcasm damage.