Small people (deposit holders) keep their money up to FDIC limits and investors and counter-parties are wiped out
The problem is you would probably have had pretty much all banks, big and small, go under all at once. You think the FDIC is equipped for that?
I guess you could theorize that the best solution is to allow a financial and economic collapse to give us a fresh start and clean the slate. That's fair enough, I suppose... but it certainly isn't such a clear-cut safe and obvious solution that you can blame people for not taking that path.
Yeah, the thing about the bank bailouts is that pretty much everyone who understands the issue agrees that they were more or less necessary. Whether they were handled properly is still a question, and we arguably never should have gotten into that kind of situation, but once we were there, the bailouts were necessary.
If you don't understand why, here's the deal (just a simplified overview as I understand it): Many banks were apparently not solvent. If the government did nothing and your bank went under, you may have essentially showed up at your bank one day to find your checking and savings accounts no longer existed. To this, many people respond, "But my money is FDIC insured!" However, the whole "FDIC insured" thing means that if the bank goes under, the government will take control of the bank, effectively socializing it completely, bail it out, and then sell it off. That's not really any better. To make matters worse, these large banks are fairly interconnected, which means if even a couple major banks were to go under, it would have caused problems for anyone who it owed money to, including all the other banks. Letting a company like CitiGroup go under would cause a chain reaction that would cause lots of other banks to go under.
So ultimately, there were only two options here. Either (a) do some kind of bailout and keep our financial system going; or (b) let our entire financial system collapse, taking everyone's investments and bank accounts with it. Does anyone other than revolutionary anarchists really wish that we'd done option B?
This isn't a partisan issue. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration were involved in bailing the banks out, and it was because both recognized that it just needed to be done. No one really wanted to do it.
I don't know about this particular issue, but the rationale for including some of the not-really-stimulus spending in the stimulus bill was that it was compensating for shortfalls that were due to the economic contraction. So for example, increasing unemployment benefits isn't exactly stimulative, but it helps people out in the mean time until the economy recovers. Likewise, increasing scholarships isn't exactly the most stimulative thing, but as the economy contracts and people can't afford to pay for college anymore, it enables some of those people to stay in college and keeps enrollment up.
And part of the rationale for doing that sort of thing is that you're trying to avoid a sort of economic death-spiral. The economy contracts, causing people to have less money, causing people to spend less, causing the economy to contract more, etc. The idea is to put on the breaks as much as possible and keep money flowing to various sectors to avoid that sort of chain reaction.
I'm not saying that it's right or that the bill was all done properly. I'm just giving one of the explanations that I've read on why some of the stimulus was spent on things that aren't clearly or immediately stimulative.
Sorry, I can't trust any web site with that much obvious bias.
Citation?
How about the fact that it uses the word "Porkulus" as the name of the stimulus bill? Is it at all possible in that context to believe that they're reserving judgement and just reporting facts?
I thought the idea was that all responses to DNS queries would be signed and therefore verifiable, and not that people would need to buy individual certificates from CAs.
I'm going to put IANAE in all of my posts here, since I don't really know what I'm talking about in any depth. However, my guess would be that DNS records, being small by themselves, are dramatically increased in size by adding encryption keys and signatures.
IANAE, but it sounds like the KSK is used to sign all the other keys to assure their validity. So you have a KSK for all of DNS, and you use that to sign ZSKs for each TLD...?
I don't really know, but it seemed like it might be more helpful to guess and let someone correct me than to just post a link to a long technical explanation.
I just recently cancelled my cable and signed up for Netflix, and I have to say it's working pretty well for me. I play stuff on my TV via a PS3, and it's pretty close to what I think video should be. Big selection, I can play whatever I want whenever I want however much I want, and the monthly cost isn't very much. They only way I can think of off-hand to improve it would be to make everything available for streaming, and to have all TV episodes for every show available at their normal air date.
The only thing that might possibly work against what you're talking about is the fact that the media companies lose a lot of leverage once distribution is happening online. That's kinda exactly why they don't really want distribution to move online. Their business is much more secure if they can get you to keep buying DVDs.
Most small businesses have a hard time dealing with software licensing.
True, and it's not just the cost of buying licenses. Keeping track of licenses takes a certain amount of effort and organization. Keeping track of all the terms of individual licenses takes time and legal expertise. Performing thorough software audits can take some time and/or resources.
The thing is, it may even be true that the submitter's boss bought a bunch of licenses for Office at some point and just misplaced them. It often isn't always even going to be clear to many end users what they need to keep in order to prove compliance. I've come into companies that swear all their software is legal, but they don't have any proof. I've even seen cases where, after digging through closets, I've found some evidence that software was actually purchased (e.g. a stack of disks) but no real paperwork.
Part of the reason I favor FOSS is just not having to worry about that stuff. Beyond the cost, it also lets you drop any fear of being sued if you don't jump through the right draconian hoops.
At this point he will either become furious and fire you on the spot, gaining you some unemployment, or he will fix things. If he's a real sociopath, though, he may just fix things and then fire you anyway. It's probably best to pull this after you have another potential job lined up.
Even if he doesn't fire you, he'll probably find ways to punish you and make your life hell. It's probably best to pull this after you have another job lined up and want to quit anyway.
Yeah, that quote about "they could offer more goods to consumers" is insane. First of all, they can offer those goods to consumers. This change wouldn't create the possibility of offering those products; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products.
Second, even if it did allow them to offer more goods, why the hell is that the FCC's business? Since when is it the FCC's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA? I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens, and not the other way around.
Of course, that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy. The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM: it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses. You know, like you buy the Bluray and... what? You want to play the movie on your iPod? Buy the special iPod version. Oh, you want to be able to play it on your netbook? You have to buy a separate version for that.
And then they complain that consumers aren't buying enough movies. It must be because of piracy, and certainly not because we're selling a crippled and confusing product. Therefore, the government has to find additional ways to bail them out.
Yeah, it seems like it has to be a fine line. Like what gets defined as "malware"? Anything that uses more bandwidth than the carrier likes?
It reminds me slightly of broadband providers blocking port 25 in order to prevent spam. I don't mind that as a concept, but if so they should be willing to open it on request without too much of a hassle. Charging an extra $15 a month to open it seems like they're not really trying to cut down on spam, but rather trying to milk their customers by charging for things that really should come free with access.
So if you change/drop any of the elements of this patent, is it not covered? Like if you don't have identifiers indicated other accounts having the right to permit the task, but you have the rest of it, can you say, "Sorry Microsoft, but your patent doesn't cover my implimentation."?
Even saying it "breaks Atom support" is perhaps a little inaccurate. There has never officially been Atom support in OSX. It just happened to work. Now it happens to not work. Maybe it was intentional on their part, but it was never "official".
Well shoot. I guess Glenn Beck really *did* win a big victory in getting didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com, since there aren't that many variations on that domain name that could work. It's so catchy and easy to type. It's not like you could just make it didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirlin1990.org or didglennbeckrapeandmurderayoungboyin1989.net.
Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly
They don't want to "take the bait" because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings. Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't argue with a madman? The people who are convinced by his ravings won't be convinced by your good arguments.
I think Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who rapes and murders young girls... or young women... I don't know what it is.
Now of course I'm not saying that he rapes people; I'm saying he has a problem. He has a... this guy is, I believe, a rapist.
I think it depends a little on the particulars of the situation. Good management might not want just raw numbers, but they also probably don't want you to crystallize it down to the point of making the decision for them. That is, unless it's your job to make the decision for them. There's a balance required, and it depends on the nature of your business, the personalities of the executives, and the particular job responsibilities you hold.
But I think you're right-- it is helpful to understand your company well enough to know what the executive wants to know about and why. If it's just a generic status report on the technical stats of your website, make sure to collect the stats that could provide warning signs (e.g. spikes in traffic maxing out bandwidth?) or opportunities (e.g. a lot of traffic seeming to come from an unexpected market). Make somewhat raw data available, but give an overview with anything important or interesting highlighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Small people (deposit holders) keep their money up to FDIC limits and investors and counter-parties are wiped out
The problem is you would probably have had pretty much all banks, big and small, go under all at once. You think the FDIC is equipped for that?
I guess you could theorize that the best solution is to allow a financial and economic collapse to give us a fresh start and clean the slate. That's fair enough, I suppose... but it certainly isn't such a clear-cut safe and obvious solution that you can blame people for not taking that path.
Yeah, the thing about the bank bailouts is that pretty much everyone who understands the issue agrees that they were more or less necessary. Whether they were handled properly is still a question, and we arguably never should have gotten into that kind of situation, but once we were there, the bailouts were necessary.
If you don't understand why, here's the deal (just a simplified overview as I understand it): Many banks were apparently not solvent. If the government did nothing and your bank went under, you may have essentially showed up at your bank one day to find your checking and savings accounts no longer existed. To this, many people respond, "But my money is FDIC insured!" However, the whole "FDIC insured" thing means that if the bank goes under, the government will take control of the bank, effectively socializing it completely, bail it out, and then sell it off. That's not really any better. To make matters worse, these large banks are fairly interconnected, which means if even a couple major banks were to go under, it would have caused problems for anyone who it owed money to, including all the other banks. Letting a company like CitiGroup go under would cause a chain reaction that would cause lots of other banks to go under.
So ultimately, there were only two options here. Either (a) do some kind of bailout and keep our financial system going; or (b) let our entire financial system collapse, taking everyone's investments and bank accounts with it. Does anyone other than revolutionary anarchists really wish that we'd done option B?
This isn't a partisan issue. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration were involved in bailing the banks out, and it was because both recognized that it just needed to be done. No one really wanted to do it.
I don't know about this particular issue, but the rationale for including some of the not-really-stimulus spending in the stimulus bill was that it was compensating for shortfalls that were due to the economic contraction. So for example, increasing unemployment benefits isn't exactly stimulative, but it helps people out in the mean time until the economy recovers. Likewise, increasing scholarships isn't exactly the most stimulative thing, but as the economy contracts and people can't afford to pay for college anymore, it enables some of those people to stay in college and keeps enrollment up.
And part of the rationale for doing that sort of thing is that you're trying to avoid a sort of economic death-spiral. The economy contracts, causing people to have less money, causing people to spend less, causing the economy to contract more, etc. The idea is to put on the breaks as much as possible and keep money flowing to various sectors to avoid that sort of chain reaction.
I'm not saying that it's right or that the bill was all done properly. I'm just giving one of the explanations that I've read on why some of the stimulus was spent on things that aren't clearly or immediately stimulative.
Citation?
How about the fact that it uses the word "Porkulus" as the name of the stimulus bill? Is it at all possible in that context to believe that they're reserving judgement and just reporting facts?
I thought the idea was that all responses to DNS queries would be signed and therefore verifiable, and not that people would need to buy individual certificates from CAs.
I'm going to put IANAE in all of my posts here, since I don't really know what I'm talking about in any depth. However, my guess would be that DNS records, being small by themselves, are dramatically increased in size by adding encryption keys and signatures.
IANAE, but it sounds like the KSK is used to sign all the other keys to assure their validity. So you have a KSK for all of DNS, and you use that to sign ZSKs for each TLD...?
I don't really know, but it seemed like it might be more helpful to guess and let someone correct me than to just post a link to a long technical explanation.
I just recently cancelled my cable and signed up for Netflix, and I have to say it's working pretty well for me. I play stuff on my TV via a PS3, and it's pretty close to what I think video should be. Big selection, I can play whatever I want whenever I want however much I want, and the monthly cost isn't very much. They only way I can think of off-hand to improve it would be to make everything available for streaming, and to have all TV episodes for every show available at their normal air date.
The only thing that might possibly work against what you're talking about is the fact that the media companies lose a lot of leverage once distribution is happening online. That's kinda exactly why they don't really want distribution to move online. Their business is much more secure if they can get you to keep buying DVDs.
Would you mind spelling out why you think that's the case?
Most small businesses have a hard time dealing with software licensing.
True, and it's not just the cost of buying licenses. Keeping track of licenses takes a certain amount of effort and organization. Keeping track of all the terms of individual licenses takes time and legal expertise. Performing thorough software audits can take some time and/or resources.
The thing is, it may even be true that the submitter's boss bought a bunch of licenses for Office at some point and just misplaced them. It often isn't always even going to be clear to many end users what they need to keep in order to prove compliance. I've come into companies that swear all their software is legal, but they don't have any proof. I've even seen cases where, after digging through closets, I've found some evidence that software was actually purchased (e.g. a stack of disks) but no real paperwork.
Part of the reason I favor FOSS is just not having to worry about that stuff. Beyond the cost, it also lets you drop any fear of being sued if you don't jump through the right draconian hoops.
At this point he will either become furious and fire you on the spot, gaining you some unemployment, or he will fix things. If he's a real sociopath, though, he may just fix things and then fire you anyway. It's probably best to pull this after you have another potential job lined up.
Even if he doesn't fire you, he'll probably find ways to punish you and make your life hell. It's probably best to pull this after you have another job lined up and want to quit anyway.
Yeah, that quote about "they could offer more goods to consumers" is insane. First of all, they can offer those goods to consumers. This change wouldn't create the possibility of offering those products; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products.
Second, even if it did allow them to offer more goods, why the hell is that the FCC's business? Since when is it the FCC's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA? I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens, and not the other way around.
Of course, that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy. The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM: it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses. You know, like you buy the Bluray and... what? You want to play the movie on your iPod? Buy the special iPod version. Oh, you want to be able to play it on your netbook? You have to buy a separate version for that.
And then they complain that consumers aren't buying enough movies. It must be because of piracy, and certainly not because we're selling a crippled and confusing product. Therefore, the government has to find additional ways to bail them out.
It's not a crazy plan if it works.
Yeah, it seems like it has to be a fine line. Like what gets defined as "malware"? Anything that uses more bandwidth than the carrier likes?
It reminds me slightly of broadband providers blocking port 25 in order to prevent spam. I don't mind that as a concept, but if so they should be willing to open it on request without too much of a hassle. Charging an extra $15 a month to open it seems like they're not really trying to cut down on spam, but rather trying to milk their customers by charging for things that really should come free with access.
So if you change/drop any of the elements of this patent, is it not covered? Like if you don't have identifiers indicated other accounts having the right to permit the task, but you have the rest of it, can you say, "Sorry Microsoft, but your patent doesn't cover my implimentation."?
Sure... been there; done that. But where are you now? Are you still using Amiga?
Even saying it "breaks Atom support" is perhaps a little inaccurate. There has never officially been Atom support in OSX. It just happened to work. Now it happens to not work. Maybe it was intentional on their part, but it was never "official".
working link
Well shoot. I guess Glenn Beck really *did* win a big victory in getting didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com, since there aren't that many variations on that domain name that could work. It's so catchy and easy to type. It's not like you could just make it didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirlin1990.org or didglennbeckrapeandmurderayoungboyin1989.net.
Obviously, the Whtie House doesn't want to take the bait, because then they'll have to actually talk about those idiots directly
They don't want to "take the bait" because all it would legitimize Beck and drive up his ratings. Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't argue with a madman? The people who are convinced by his ravings won't be convinced by your good arguments.
I think Glenn Beck has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who rapes and murders young girls... or young women... I don't know what it is.
Now of course I'm not saying that he rapes people; I'm saying he has a problem. He has a... this guy is, I believe, a rapist.
Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?
The term "lesser of two evils" comes to mind.
I think it depends a little on the particulars of the situation. Good management might not want just raw numbers, but they also probably don't want you to crystallize it down to the point of making the decision for them. That is, unless it's your job to make the decision for them. There's a balance required, and it depends on the nature of your business, the personalities of the executives, and the particular job responsibilities you hold.
But I think you're right-- it is helpful to understand your company well enough to know what the executive wants to know about and why. If it's just a generic status report on the technical stats of your website, make sure to collect the stats that could provide warning signs (e.g. spikes in traffic maxing out bandwidth?) or opportunities (e.g. a lot of traffic seeming to come from an unexpected market). Make somewhat raw data available, but give an overview with anything important or interesting highlighted.