The phone didn't need to do anything other than make phone calls, but they didn't have any that would just make phone calls. Everything they had on display were smart phones. Even the most basic phone I could find came with the ability to get mobile TV. (which I admit is cool, but he'd never use it. )
Yep - I looked at upgrading my Motorola v180 a few years ago; but kept it nonetheless. At the time, I had a job where I could have a camera in the office. If the phone had one, I would have had to leave it in the car while I worked. Yet, even in an area where >50% of the jobs have such a requirement (Washington D.C. metro area), the phone companies push the idea that "all the demand is for camera phones" so they don't carry anything else. I told them I couldn't have a camera phone and even talked to the manager who said that corporate told them what to carry. I tried to convey they needed to tell corporate that not everyone wanted a camera phone, but it fell on deaf ears.
Now they're doing the same thing with smart phones - certainly no surprise. But guess what? I'm still sticking with my v180.
Of course there is another choice too - buy directly from the manufacturer. The only thing you have to be careful of is to make sure that the phone is compatible with your network. I found a couple phones that didn't have a camera at Motorola's on-line store; and you can get them with or without a plan. But at least you can get what you want.
That said, after 4+ years, my v180's starting to get problematic (the microphone is picking up/generating static noise). I'll probably replace it with an OpenMoko Freerunner (www.openmoko.com); but I'm certainly not paying for a data plan for the thing. (I'll hook it up to my wireless network at home for that.) I have no interest in paying more for features I don't use. (I mostly want the OpenMoko to play with - I'll probably use the bluetooth (in secure mode); but I'll never activate the cellular data network.)
As others have said, do what you find interesting. Nothing will be more rewarding.
That said, consider the why you want it. A master can help in some companies; a doctorate is only good (for the most part) if you want to teach at the college/university level - there are very few jobs out there outside of academia that require a Phd.
Also, consider this - just because you have the degree, doesn't mean you can demand the pay. If you're doing it for pay levels, then you also need to back it up with experience. They go hand in hand, and having too much 'degree' and not enough experience will hurt you more than help. If this means taking some time between your BS and MS, that's okay.
Further more, consider the degree and what it can do for you. A MS in IT isn't going to be of much use unless you like working on Help Desk, Help Desk Management, or being the server administrator and that's it. A MS in CS will get you a bit further, but still not much - it just won't limit you to the administration/techsupport side of things.
If you're really wanting to find something that will dig in deep, then a MS an EE (Electrical Engineering) will do you best, and open a new work of possibilities - including embedded programming (a no-go without an EE degree of some sort). Of course, you also have to pass the EE tests, and become an official Engineer - but that helps you even more.
So, all in all, consider two things: (1) the why, and (2) where you want to go - e.g. what you want to do in the long run.
Nothing else will be able to give wiser advise - but this may very well take more time and thought than you may like.
Most conservatives care quite religiously about privacy. That should tell you how far away from Conservative the elected Republican representatives and Republican leadership are from the people they are "representing".
[sadly true sarcastic remark]We all know that the elected representatives and the party leaderships now represent corporations, not people.[/sadly true sarcastic remark]
In this case, all of XFS experience on the topic applies to Ext4 perfectly.
That would only be true if Ext4 was XFS, which it is not. While I have not looked at the code, I would gander that there are a number of design differences between them that may lead to difference results even down the same general path.
As I said in my original apply (20760005) - that doesn't mean its not useful, just might not necessarily be applicable. Only those intimately familiar with the project and its source and the decisions (or the those who have intimately reviewed all such information, as is possible with FOSS but not proprietary projects) would be able to truly answer the (i) useful and (ii) applicable questions.
The spec is a set of necessary conditions but for many people it will be a sufficient set, they expect a filesystem to be as bulletproof as possible in every situation.
The spec in any design is the final authority.
For example, if the spec for a bridge crossing a river says that the bridge ought to hold 20 tons of weight, then it must do at least that. If the bridget collapses because you put 20 tons on and a spec of dust landed on top of it, then it doesn't matter - it still held to spec. If you were able to get 40 tons on before it collapsed all the better, but you were only ever guaranteed by the spec (and thus the designers) 20 tons.
If the spec for an engine said it could handle 8k RPM and it blew up at 8001 RPM, it was in spec. If you managed to get it to 9k RPM great, but you were only guaranteed 8k RPM.
That doesn't mean you don't build tolerance into the spec - e.g. 8k RPM +/- 5% - or in try to exceed it where it makes sense e.g. delivering 25 ton to ensure you have 20 tons and some leeway for safety. (After all stupid is as stupid does.)
However, you can't fault the designers or engineers when the device lives up to spec and breaks because you (as the user) tried to exceed the spec and it failed.
Same goes for software. If the software spec says "provides A at rate B" then you better expect that and nothing more. If you need something different, then find a device (or API or file system, etc) that meets your requirements.
Pushing something beyond spec is not the problem of the spec designers - but of the users of the spec that expect it to exceed the spec.
And, btw, specs that supposedly are "minimum" standard specs are still specs just the same. They allow a certain minimum that (with software) allows portability; if you want to do better you still need to find another spec that supports what you want to do. For example: POSIX guarantees a portability between Unix and Unix-like OS's; but if you want to do better than POSIX then you use the Linux POSIX spec or the Solaris POSIX spec ( or BSD POSIX spec, etc.). You are get what you want, but at the cost of some portability. Failing to do that is the failure of the user of the spec, not the writers of the spec.
And just to be clear - by "user of the spec I do not mean the people implementing the spec but the people using the software (or device) that implements the spec. In this case, not the implementors of ext3 or ext4, but the implementors of the software going above the ext3/4 spec to do something else.
Furthermore the spec exists as a measurement to be able to tell when you've completed your job. If the spec says 10 tons and you get 11 tons you've finished the job; if you're only getting 9.99 tons you're not done. If you get 10.00001 tons you've got. If it say 10 tons +/- 5%, then might be done at 9.99 tons, but you really should go for the 10 tons + 5% just to be safe. Either way - once you've met the spec you're done. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve the spec and then make a better product; but there's no guarantee that will happen - the spec is the spec, and that's all you have to do - it's all you agreed to do to start with. (Think of it like a contract.)
...I wish the micro applied to the macro, but it doesn't.
Actually it does. And this is true because every debt based system eventually collapses simply because there is too much debt. Its unsustainable. You have to lower debt at some point and balance everything out to have a sustainable economy. The Fed as lender and the gov't as borrower may balance some things out during short runs, but eventually even they won't be able to lend enough or borrow enough to resolve the problem - and, btw, that's exactly what we're seeing now.
So yes, it does apply. And yes, govt can (and do) go bankrupt. There is nothing stopping that from happening to the US govt either.
Well...they seem to be moving towards a cycle of Release, Service Pack, new release.
For example, their compilers have (since VS2003) only received one service pack before the compiler is deprecated and they move to a new compiler version/name.
It looks like they are doing the same thing with Office now; and likely Windows too. From the way Vista->Win7 looks. I'll be very surprised if they issue an SP2 for Vista or Office 2007.
Not necessarily a bad thing; but it does make it a bit more costly in the long run to stay with the platform.
It only withdraws from other resources if it doesn't or people default. Lack of expansion does not equate to greater defaults.
How do you service debt payments denominated in dollars without dollars?
Never said you did. I said it withdraws from other resources. There's no need to create money to pay back debt. You can do it with zero money growth; and it works quite well.
(Example) So instead of paying $90 for cable TV, you apply that $90 to your debt - or you get a $15 cable TV package, and apply the other $75 to the debt. This is what debt counselors do all the time in helping people get out of debt. You cut what you don't need; you minimize what you spend; and you pay down your debt.
After you're out of debt, then you can go back to that $90 cable package.
Yeah, I know - not popular. But that doesn't make it the wrong solution. The right solution is often not popular.
The best thing the Fed could do is help the gov't pay down it debt instead of creation more.
With what?
Balance the budget - honestly, not deceptively like was done in the 1990's by adding Social Security savings to the budget so it looked balanced. Any surplus in the budget goes back to paying down debt. Again, no money creation. Just the simple economic model - earn more than you spend. The gov't can do it to - take in more taxes than is spent; have zero savings after by applying all money not spent to debt - which by the way would put that money directly back into the economy and strengthen the dollar.
In a way, this does create money - though not the way you're thinking. It creates money by making existing money more valuable than it was before - since there is less debt against it.
The strength of a currency is its valuation - which is most directly a representation of the debt against it as well as the confidence in it. Reduce the debt, the confidence grows; and the valuation grows faster than confidence in the currency alone.
dd in Fractional reserve banking and it's now leveraged debt (textbook 10 to 1, but in practice a lot more).
Yes, the U.S. currently allows a 20:1 fractional system. Europe is using a 40:1 system. Nothing necessarily wrong with the Fractional system; and it can still be done with what I've proposed above.
The only way for the Fed to help is to directly inject dollars, which is not a power it has (yet). Exchange created dollars for govt debt (and now trash paper) yes. Drop money from helicopters - they might get desperate enough but not yet.
Fed can't do it, but the Treasury and Congress can. Don't want the Fed to buy back the debt - it's not their debt. The Treasury must do so. This indirectly puts money back into the system, lowers the debt, strengthens the confidence and valuation of the currency; and ultimately strengthens the whole economy.
Sadly, while any debt counselor worth their weight would advise people to do exactly what I've stated above you won't likely find one economist that would give that advise; yet it's the only way out of our current economic situation.
Deflation has some serious consequences in a debt based monetary system.
Debt based systems always ultimately fail as the only thing perpectuating the system is more debt. Eventually someone is going to call that debt.
Each year enough new money MUST be created to pay the servicing cost of the current outstanding debt. If the money supply doesn't expand at at least this rate, people default.
Another fallacy. It does not need to expand. It only withdraws from other resources if it doesn't or people default. Lack of expansion does not equate to greater defaults. Coorrelation does not mean causes.
This is why the Fed is handing out money like candy at the fair in the US. There was a HUGE amount of gambling going on that was based on shaky assets
Which will in turn only hasten a deflation cycle. The best thing the Fed could do is help the gov't pay down it debt instead of creation more.
Just like uncontrolled inflation is bad, so is uncontrolled deflation.
However, controlled deflation is just as good for an economy as controlled inflation, and (btw) just as necessary.
In an inflation economy, you state your earnings adjusted for inflation. Meaning that you adjust the old numbers by the amount of inflation so you can compare the it with the current numbers.
In a deflation economy, you state your earnings adjusted for deflation. Same thing as the when adjusting for inflation, only the numbers go down instead of up.
It's only current economic thought that says deflation is bad - and everyone who does is arrogant in saying so.
Even if you fully controlled inflation (as the U.S. has done pretty well at since WWII), you still need deflation. And it will happen sooner or later. The longer you push it off, the harder and more uncontrolled it will become when it finally does happen.
However, politicians are of the mind "not on my watch", so they are trying to push it off as long as they can (and will find and extol any economist who agrees with their agenda to do so) instead of doing the proper thing and letting the markets adjust for inflation by deflating some.
The problem before was that (a) it was not controlled, and (b) people didn't do the adjusted comparisons. Now, everyone reporting earnings (at least to SEC in the U.S) is required to do so using adjusted numbers. Whether it's inflation or deflation it won't matter - the numbers will still be easily comparable and show the real health of the companies.
Now, of course, one has to answer the question why deflation is good - and that comes to simple valuation of the currency. Inflation creates more money, but deflates the value - so $1 today with 5% inflation will only be $0.95 tomorrow. Lower valuation as more currency is spread out while keeping the same cap. Deflation works exactly the opposite - $1 today with 5% deflation will be $1.05 tomorrow. Higher valuation as there is less currency out there while keeping the same cap. Both are required to keep a steady and strong currency.
As much as anyone may like to believe that even a fiat based currency can create currency out of nowhere that is not the case. It just means higher inflation as the currency is spread out farther and more debt taken on to support the inflation.
tell the same to vietnam, granada, panama, iraq, afghanistan...
Sorry, but you have no story there. Most all have either willingly become territorities and remain as such or were let go on their own once a stable government was setup. Iraq and Afganistan are still on their way to a stable, self-sustaining government.
Now if (as another/.'r pointed out) you had named the various Native American tribes (e.g. the Sioux, Cherokee, Manhattan, Navajo, etc.) you would have a different case altogether. However, even then, those tribes are still granted today numerous rights above what others are given (sovereignty over their tribal land, etc.); and much has been done in recent years to rectify much of the injustice done a from the 1600's to the early 1900's.
Aside from the Native Americans, the U.S.A has done nothing the likes of most any other nation when it comes to international affairs; and mostly stands up for those who are otherwise powerless to do so - giving them the reigns or letting them decide what happens when the time comes.
And before you reply, go talk to people from Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and other U.S. Territories and compare their lives to those of territories by any other nation, with respect to freedoms, etc.
CompUSA. They carried a lot of stuff that Best Buy doesn't, at least in store.
I'm not sure of that, either.
There was some diagnostics stuff - like a diagnostics PCI card - that CompUSA carried. BestBuy doesn't carry that kind of stuff in their stores last I checked. CompUSA tended to cater more towards people that built their own computers, versus BestBuy which caters more towards people in general.
I never had a problem with stock much at CompUSA, though admittedly I rarely went there for sales - mostly for the stuff I couldn't get elsewhere. I'm guessing MicroCenter and Fry's would carry the stuff I'm looking for, but BestBuy doesn't (again, at least in store).
On the other hand, even for non-sales items, CircuitCity carried little stock. I think it became more of an epidemic once they started doing they 'order-online-pickup-and-go' thing; but that was probably about the only way you could get stuff. (Never tried it; stopped buying at the store before they did that.)
For a lot of people the only substantial consumer electronics retailers are best buy and circuit city. After circuit city is officially gone, best buy will have numerous markets without even token competition for consumer electronics (unless you count walmart).
I don't feel sad for Circuit City or its execs - or store managers, etc. I do feel sad for the sales people on the floor, having had to be put out of work for the failure of their management.
I stopped buying anything from Circuit City severals years back (around 2001) because of their pour stocking policy, especially with respect to sales. To have a sale on an item, and then only have 5 of them in stock is ridiculous.
Add to that the various hiring/firing fiasco's per management to be able to pay people less, and it was just a matter of time.
Personally, I'm glad they went out of business.
That said, I did live one place for a short time (Johnstown, PA) where there was no Best Buy and Circuit City was the only choice. I bought on-line or drove an hour away when I needed stuff. (Why? See above.) I have (had) no use for Circuit City.
The only store I was sad to see shutdown was CompUSA. They carried a lot of stuff that Best Buy doesn't, at least in store.
You missed several versions of Win95 - including Win95 (original - it had no sub marker), Win95A (which was different from Win95a) and Win95B (which was different from Win95b). (So thats 95, 95a, 95A, 95b, 95B - aka OSR2.1, and 95c, thus far.) There were also a few version past Win95c. When I was last able to remember all the versions, there were something like 6 or 7 different ones.
Also, don't forget WinXP x64, Win2k Pro/Server/Cluster/Data Center/Advanced; and don't forget Win32s (a release of Win3.x after 3.11 and before 95) which featured the Win32 API and Windows Registry as native features of the Win 3.x series.
try getting an XP based computer, you not only have to pay for Vista but you also have to pay for them to install XP over Vista and that's about $150 extra.
Not nessarily. Depends on the vendor really. Some vendors will do it for free. Others will give you the disks (either small charge or free) and then let you do it yourself. So it's really hard to say what it actually costs to convert a Vista system back to XP when bought from an OEM.
Then there's also the issue that businesses still buy a lot of PCs and make up more market than home users, and there are a lot that still get XP directly from the OEMs too. Of course the some medium, and all the large companies just image the systems to what they want, so it doesn't really matter at the OEM level to them.
It is forced on everyone purchasing a PC from any of the major OEMs.
And yet Vista is having trouble gaining market share, and still losing out sales to XP.
THAT's my point.
Vista's market share is a lot harder to determine than most other systems - primarily because Microsoft is mixing the numbers up to make it look like Vista's market share is larger than it really is. (They want some justification for the billions spent over 5 years to make it after all.)
U.S.A. leans on European countries to allow them, and eventually succeeds.
SCOTUS (of the U.S.A) invalidates software patents as unConstitutional.
To be compatible with E.U., which now has software patetns, U.S.A. signs treaty allowing patents, which, being a treaty, [you] believe, carries same weight as other parts of [the] Constitution. Now whole world has software patents, just because the U.S.A. temporarlity did in the beginning.
???
Profit!
America = U.S.A + Canada + Mexico + several dozen Central and South American countries.
SCOTUS only applies to U.S.A.
U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S.A.
Not sure why exactly...probably because FAT is used a lot, and can be supported by devices without a lot of overhead. Not sure how exFAT fits in there, but I would guess that it probably has a similar low-overhead design.
In comparison, ext2 and NTFS have a lot higher overhead as you have to map a lot more stuff to be able to read/write.
Of course, the low-overhead is also one of the reasons why FAT has a lot more corruption in it too.
No it wasn't. I'm talking about going from like 120GB to 100 GB. I'm well aware of the misleading manufacture info and this was well above and beyond that change, which was most evident because the drive _came_ formatted at a larger size than what I had in the end.
Manufacturer's base their numbers on base 10, as opposed to computer systems which use base 2. So for every kilobyte, the manufacturer will by shy by 24 bytes. The easiest way to compute the actual size of the drive is take the base 10 number in bits, convert to bytes (div by 8), and then computer up to the size using 1024 instead of 1000. For example:
True, but it will happily install (at least using the Linux Kernel's driver for it) on any size drive. I did that a few years ago for a backup drive that had to be accessible from Linux as well as Windows. Windows would only allow the FS to format to 32GB; while the Linux driver let it take up the whole drive (120GB? can't quite remember). The real funny thing was that Windows was happy to work with the drive afterwards and didn't complain whatsoever about the larger than 32GB FAT32 FS on it - and I filled more than the 32GB.
However, FAT32 does come at a high overhead price. I know I lost a few GB just to the formatting alone.
P.S. I no longer have access to that drive, otherwise, I'd pull up the real size/usage for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - I looked at upgrading my Motorola v180 a few years ago; but kept it nonetheless. At the time, I had a job where I could have a camera in the office. If the phone had one, I would have had to leave it in the car while I worked. Yet, even in an area where >50% of the jobs have such a requirement (Washington D.C. metro area), the phone companies push the idea that "all the demand is for camera phones" so they don't carry anything else. I told them I couldn't have a camera phone and even talked to the manager who said that corporate told them what to carry. I tried to convey they needed to tell corporate that not everyone wanted a camera phone, but it fell on deaf ears.
Now they're doing the same thing with smart phones - certainly no surprise. But guess what? I'm still sticking with my v180.
Of course there is another choice too - buy directly from the manufacturer. The only thing you have to be careful of is to make sure that the phone is compatible with your network. I found a couple phones that didn't have a camera at Motorola's on-line store; and you can get them with or without a plan. But at least you can get what you want.
That said, after 4+ years, my v180's starting to get problematic (the microphone is picking up/generating static noise). I'll probably replace it with an OpenMoko Freerunner (www.openmoko.com); but I'm certainly not paying for a data plan for the thing. (I'll hook it up to my wireless network at home for that.) I have no interest in paying more for features I don't use. (I mostly want the OpenMoko to play with - I'll probably use the bluetooth (in secure mode); but I'll never activate the cellular data network.)
As others have said, do what you find interesting. Nothing will be more rewarding.
That said, consider the why you want it. A master can help in some companies; a doctorate is only good (for the most part) if you want to teach at the college/university level - there are very few jobs out there outside of academia that require a Phd.
Also, consider this - just because you have the degree, doesn't mean you can demand the pay. If you're doing it for pay levels, then you also need to back it up with experience. They go hand in hand, and having too much 'degree' and not enough experience will hurt you more than help. If this means taking some time between your BS and MS, that's okay.
Further more, consider the degree and what it can do for you. A MS in IT isn't going to be of much use unless you like working on Help Desk, Help Desk Management, or being the server administrator and that's it. A MS in CS will get you a bit further, but still not much - it just won't limit you to the administration/techsupport side of things.
If you're really wanting to find something that will dig in deep, then a MS an EE (Electrical Engineering) will do you best, and open a new work of possibilities - including embedded programming (a no-go without an EE degree of some sort). Of course, you also have to pass the EE tests, and become an official Engineer - but that helps you even more.
So, all in all, consider two things: (1) the why, and (2) where you want to go - e.g. what you want to do in the long run.
Nothing else will be able to give wiser advise - but this may very well take more time and thought than you may like.
Most conservatives care quite religiously about privacy. That should tell you how far away from Conservative the elected Republican representatives and Republican leadership are from the people they are "representing". [sadly true sarcastic remark]We all know that the elected representatives and the party leaderships now represent corporations, not people.[/sadly true sarcastic remark]
In this case, all of XFS experience on the topic applies to Ext4 perfectly.
That would only be true if Ext4 was XFS, which it is not. While I have not looked at the code, I would gander that there are a number of design differences between them that may lead to difference results even down the same general path.
As I said in my original apply (20760005) - that doesn't mean its not useful, just might not necessarily be applicable. Only those intimately familiar with the project and its source and the decisions (or the those who have intimately reviewed all such information, as is possible with FOSS but not proprietary projects) would be able to truly answer the (i) useful and (ii) applicable questions.
only so long as they apply to the direction you are going. Not all mistakes by others apply to every direction - in fact, most probably don't.
That doesn't mean that "Lesson's Learned" are useful - just not always applicable.
The spec in any design is the final authority.
For example, if the spec for a bridge crossing a river says that the bridge ought to hold 20 tons of weight, then it must do at least that. If the bridget collapses because you put 20 tons on and a spec of dust landed on top of it, then it doesn't matter - it still held to spec. If you were able to get 40 tons on before it collapsed all the better, but you were only ever guaranteed by the spec (and thus the designers) 20 tons.
If the spec for an engine said it could handle 8k RPM and it blew up at 8001 RPM, it was in spec. If you managed to get it to 9k RPM great, but you were only guaranteed 8k RPM.
That doesn't mean you don't build tolerance into the spec - e.g. 8k RPM +/- 5% - or in try to exceed it where it makes sense e.g. delivering 25 ton to ensure you have 20 tons and some leeway for safety. (After all stupid is as stupid does.)
However, you can't fault the designers or engineers when the device lives up to spec and breaks because you (as the user) tried to exceed the spec and it failed.
Same goes for software. If the software spec says "provides A at rate B" then you better expect that and nothing more. If you need something different, then find a device (or API or file system, etc) that meets your requirements.
Pushing something beyond spec is not the problem of the spec designers - but of the users of the spec that expect it to exceed the spec.
And, btw, specs that supposedly are "minimum" standard specs are still specs just the same. They allow a certain minimum that (with software) allows portability; if you want to do better you still need to find another spec that supports what you want to do. For example: POSIX guarantees a portability between Unix and Unix-like OS's; but if you want to do better than POSIX then you use the Linux POSIX spec or the Solaris POSIX spec ( or BSD POSIX spec, etc.). You are get what you want, but at the cost of some portability. Failing to do that is the failure of the user of the spec, not the writers of the spec.
And just to be clear - by "user of the spec I do not mean the people implementing the spec but the people using the software (or device) that implements the spec. In this case, not the implementors of ext3 or ext4, but the implementors of the software going above the ext3/4 spec to do something else.
Furthermore the spec exists as a measurement to be able to tell when you've completed your job. If the spec says 10 tons and you get 11 tons you've finished the job; if you're only getting 9.99 tons you're not done. If you get 10.00001 tons you've got. If it say 10 tons +/- 5%, then might be done at 9.99 tons, but you really should go for the 10 tons + 5% just to be safe. Either way - once you've met the spec you're done. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve the spec and then make a better product; but there's no guarantee that will happen - the spec is the spec, and that's all you have to do - it's all you agreed to do to start with. (Think of it like a contract.)
Actually it does. And this is true because every debt based system eventually collapses simply because there is too much debt. Its unsustainable. You have to lower debt at some point and balance everything out to have a sustainable economy. The Fed as lender and the gov't as borrower may balance some things out during short runs, but eventually even they won't be able to lend enough or borrow enough to resolve the problem - and, btw, that's exactly what we're seeing now.
So yes, it does apply. And yes, govt can (and do) go bankrupt. There is nothing stopping that from happening to the US govt either.
Well...they seem to be moving towards a cycle of Release, Service Pack, new release.
For example, their compilers have (since VS2003) only received one service pack before the compiler is deprecated and they move to a new compiler version/name.
It looks like they are doing the same thing with Office now; and likely Windows too. From the way Vista->Win7 looks. I'll be very surprised if they issue an SP2 for Vista or Office 2007.
Not necessarily a bad thing; but it does make it a bit more costly in the long run to stay with the platform.
Never said you did. I said it withdraws from other resources. There's no need to create money to pay back debt. You can do it with zero money growth; and it works quite well.
(Example) So instead of paying $90 for cable TV, you apply that $90 to your debt - or you get a $15 cable TV package, and apply the other $75 to the debt. This is what debt counselors do all the time in helping people get out of debt. You cut what you don't need; you minimize what you spend; and you pay down your debt.
After you're out of debt, then you can go back to that $90 cable package.
Yeah, I know - not popular. But that doesn't make it the wrong solution. The right solution is often not popular.
Balance the budget - honestly, not deceptively like was done in the 1990's by adding Social Security savings to the budget so it looked balanced. Any surplus in the budget goes back to paying down debt. Again, no money creation. Just the simple economic model - earn more than you spend. The gov't can do it to - take in more taxes than is spent; have zero savings after by applying all money not spent to debt - which by the way would put that money directly back into the economy and strengthen the dollar.
In a way, this does create money - though not the way you're thinking. It creates money by making existing money more valuable than it was before - since there is less debt against it.
The strength of a currency is its valuation - which is most directly a representation of the debt against it as well as the confidence in it. Reduce the debt, the confidence grows; and the valuation grows faster than confidence in the currency alone.
Yes, the U.S. currently allows a 20:1 fractional system. Europe is using a 40:1 system. Nothing necessarily wrong with the Fractional system; and it can still be done with what I've proposed above.
Fed can't do it, but the Treasury and Congress can. Don't want the Fed to buy back the debt - it's not their debt. The Treasury must do so. This indirectly puts money back into the system, lowers the debt, strengthens the confidence and valuation of the currency; and ultimately strengthens the whole economy.
Sadly, while any debt counselor worth their weight would advise people to do exactly what I've stated above you won't likely find one economist that would give that advise; yet it's the only way out of our current economic situation.
The Conferderate states were never invaded nor annexed; only denied the ability to breakoff. Please study your American history better.
Debt based systems always ultimately fail as the only thing perpectuating the system is more debt. Eventually someone is going to call that debt.
Another fallacy. It does not need to expand. It only withdraws from other resources if it doesn't or people default. Lack of expansion does not equate to greater defaults. Coorrelation does not mean causes.
Which will in turn only hasten a deflation cycle. The best thing the Fed could do is help the gov't pay down it debt instead of creation more.
And you still get it wrong.
Just like uncontrolled inflation is bad, so is uncontrolled deflation.
However, controlled deflation is just as good for an economy as controlled inflation, and (btw) just as necessary.
In an inflation economy, you state your earnings adjusted for inflation. Meaning that you adjust the old numbers by the amount of inflation so you can compare the it with the current numbers.
In a deflation economy, you state your earnings adjusted for deflation. Same thing as the when adjusting for inflation, only the numbers go down instead of up.
It's only current economic thought that says deflation is bad - and everyone who does is arrogant in saying so.
Even if you fully controlled inflation (as the U.S. has done pretty well at since WWII), you still need deflation. And it will happen sooner or later. The longer you push it off, the harder and more uncontrolled it will become when it finally does happen.
However, politicians are of the mind "not on my watch", so they are trying to push it off as long as they can (and will find and extol any economist who agrees with their agenda to do so) instead of doing the proper thing and letting the markets adjust for inflation by deflating some.
The problem before was that (a) it was not controlled, and (b) people didn't do the adjusted comparisons. Now, everyone reporting earnings (at least to SEC in the U.S) is required to do so using adjusted numbers. Whether it's inflation or deflation it won't matter - the numbers will still be easily comparable and show the real health of the companies.
Now, of course, one has to answer the question why deflation is good - and that comes to simple valuation of the currency. Inflation creates more money, but deflates the value - so $1 today with 5% inflation will only be $0.95 tomorrow. Lower valuation as more currency is spread out while keeping the same cap. Deflation works exactly the opposite - $1 today with 5% deflation will be $1.05 tomorrow. Higher valuation as there is less currency out there while keeping the same cap. Both are required to keep a steady and strong currency.
As much as anyone may like to believe that even a fiat based currency can create currency out of nowhere that is not the case. It just means higher inflation as the currency is spread out farther and more debt taken on to support the inflation.
Correction: "Guatemala" was not the name I was thinking of...rather it was Guam that I was thinking of.
Sorry, but you have no story there. Most all have either willingly become territorities and remain as such or were let go on their own once a stable government was setup. Iraq and Afganistan are still on their way to a stable, self-sustaining government.
/.'r pointed out) you had named the various Native American tribes (e.g. the Sioux, Cherokee, Manhattan, Navajo, etc.) you would have a different case altogether. However, even then, those tribes are still granted today numerous rights above what others are given (sovereignty over their tribal land, etc.); and much has been done in recent years to rectify much of the injustice done a from the 1600's to the early 1900's.
Now if (as another
Aside from the Native Americans, the U.S.A has done nothing the likes of most any other nation when it comes to international affairs; and mostly stands up for those who are otherwise powerless to do so - giving them the reigns or letting them decide what happens when the time comes.
And before you reply, go talk to people from Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and other U.S. Territories and compare their lives to those of territories by any other nation, with respect to freedoms, etc.
There was some diagnostics stuff - like a diagnostics PCI card - that CompUSA carried. BestBuy doesn't carry that kind of stuff in their stores last I checked. CompUSA tended to cater more towards people that built their own computers, versus BestBuy which caters more towards people in general.
I never had a problem with stock much at CompUSA, though admittedly I rarely went there for sales - mostly for the stuff I couldn't get elsewhere. I'm guessing MicroCenter and Fry's would carry the stuff I'm looking for, but BestBuy doesn't (again, at least in store).
On the other hand, even for non-sales items, CircuitCity carried little stock. I think it became more of an epidemic once they started doing they 'order-online-pickup-and-go' thing; but that was probably about the only way you could get stuff. (Never tried it; stopped buying at the store before they did that.)
I don't feel sad for Circuit City or its execs - or store managers, etc. I do feel sad for the sales people on the floor, having had to be put out of work for the failure of their management.
I stopped buying anything from Circuit City severals years back (around 2001) because of their pour stocking policy, especially with respect to sales. To have a sale on an item, and then only have 5 of them in stock is ridiculous.
Add to that the various hiring/firing fiasco's per management to be able to pay people less, and it was just a matter of time.
Personally, I'm glad they went out of business.
That said, I did live one place for a short time (Johnstown, PA) where there was no Best Buy and Circuit City was the only choice. I bought on-line or drove an hour away when I needed stuff. (Why? See above.) I have (had) no use for Circuit City.
The only store I was sad to see shutdown was CompUSA. They carried a lot of stuff that Best Buy doesn't, at least in store.
Or Blackberry...
You missed several versions of Win95 - including Win95 (original - it had no sub marker), Win95A (which was different from Win95a) and Win95B (which was different from Win95b). (So thats 95, 95a, 95A, 95b, 95B - aka OSR2.1, and 95c, thus far.) There were also a few version past Win95c. When I was last able to remember all the versions, there were something like 6 or 7 different ones.
Also, don't forget WinXP x64, Win2k Pro/Server/Cluster/Data Center/Advanced; and don't forget Win32s (a release of Win3.x after 3.11 and before 95) which featured the Win32 API and Windows Registry as native features of the Win 3.x series.
Not nessarily. Depends on the vendor really. Some vendors will do it for free. Others will give you the disks (either small charge or free) and then let you do it yourself. So it's really hard to say what it actually costs to convert a Vista system back to XP when bought from an OEM.
Then there's also the issue that businesses still buy a lot of PCs and make up more market than home users, and there are a lot that still get XP directly from the OEMs too. Of course the some medium, and all the large companies just image the systems to what they want, so it doesn't really matter at the OEM level to them.
And yet Vista is having trouble gaining market share, and still losing out sales to XP.
THAT's my point.
Vista's market share is a lot harder to determine than most other systems - primarily because Microsoft is mixing the numbers up to make it look like Vista's market share is larger than it really is. (They want some justification for the billions spent over 5 years to make it after all.)
Not nessarily. See MS Windows Vista.
...the Improbability drive to come out. Or better yet, the Restaurant Probably drive (did Adams give it a name?)...
America = U.S.A + Canada + Mexico + several dozen Central and South American countries.
SCOTUS only applies to U.S.A.
U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S.A.
Please go back to 5th grade Geography.
Not sure why exactly...probably because FAT is used a lot, and can be supported by devices without a lot of overhead. Not sure how exFAT fits in there, but I would guess that it probably has a similar low-overhead design.
In comparison, ext2 and NTFS have a lot higher overhead as you have to map a lot more stuff to be able to read/write.
Of course, the low-overhead is also one of the reasons why FAT has a lot more corruption in it too.
No it wasn't. I'm talking about going from like 120GB to 100 GB. I'm well aware of the misleading manufacture info and this was well above and beyond that change, which was most evident because the drive _came_ formatted at a larger size than what I had in the end.
Manufacturer's base their numbers on base 10, as opposed to computer systems which use base 2. So for every kilobyte, the manufacturer will by shy by 24 bytes. The easiest way to compute the actual size of the drive is take the base 10 number in bits, convert to bytes (div by 8), and then computer up to the size using 1024 instead of 1000. For example:
1 TB = 1,000 GB = 1,000,000 MB = 1,000,000,000 KB = 1,000,000,000,000 Bits = 125,000,000,000 bytes = 122,070,312.5 KB = 119,209.28955078125 MB = 116.415321826934814453125 GB
True, but it will happily install (at least using the Linux Kernel's driver for it) on any size drive. I did that a few years ago for a backup drive that had to be accessible from Linux as well as Windows. Windows would only allow the FS to format to 32GB; while the Linux driver let it take up the whole drive (120GB? can't quite remember). The real funny thing was that Windows was happy to work with the drive afterwards and didn't complain whatsoever about the larger than 32GB FAT32 FS on it - and I filled more than the 32GB.
However, FAT32 does come at a high overhead price. I know I lost a few GB just to the formatting alone.
P.S. I no longer have access to that drive, otherwise, I'd pull up the real size/usage for it.