Wine has rather good support for older apps, it's always playing catch-up, but everyone agrees it does old stuff better than Vista does. Lets suppose Vista supports 80% of the old apps, and Wine supports 83% of them (the numbers are made up, but what matters is that Wine is a few points ahead). Then out of every 102 apps (100 98/XP and 2 Vista) Wine supports about 83, and Vista supports 82. I suspect that Wine has a much better than 3% edge for older app support though, and I've assumed that wine has absolutely no support for new Vista apps.
Except that Vista is actually WAY ahead of Wine. WAY ahead. No comparison. No contest.
Vista is more compatible with previous versions of Windows than WINE is. Especially after you factor in its compatibility modes, and are prepared to 'run as administrator' things.
I don't really get your argument. In fact, I think you yourself defeated your own argument in the last paragraph, you just didn't realize it.
And no, they don't have COMPLETE or TOTAL control over the content. They have reactionary control, but that's a world apart from complete control.
Of course they do. It is completely their choice that they implemented reactive control. There is nothing preventing them from pre-screening the content they publish on their website. They've simply chosen not to.
They could easily if they wanted, let you submit a video, provide you a link to that video and call it a day. What you do with that link is up to you. They'd merely be provided you the SERVICE of hosting the video for you.
But google then takes the next step, and publishes the video you submitted to them through their branded video site, alongside ads, for their sole benefit. At that point they are a content provider, and should take responsibility for what they show. If that means they have to screen content before they put it up for the public to view, so be it.
Whoever uploaded the video, I would think would be the provider of the content, while having Google as providing a service that allows it's users to share their videos.
No. I disagree strongly here. Providing 'generic webspace' or even 'video hosting' should qualify as provider of a service, but something like youtube or google video is, in my opinion, clearly a different case.
Youtube and Google Video are branded sites that they have COMPLETE control and discretion over. They decide how it looks, what they'll accept, they decide what advertising is on the site, it is THEIR site. Not yours.
While a given video itself might be yours, they aren't merely hosting it for you. They are providing the end-to-end user experience in a branded manner that they exercise total control over.
Users are given a complete google or youtube branded site that is managed and controlled by them. They allow you to upload videos -- but they decide what they accept, what it looks like, how users use it, everything.
When you visit my site, you have no idea who is providing me the service, unless I decide to put their name up there or something or you go digging at the technical level. With Youtube or Google Video... its their site, not mine. I can upload them my video, and they may or may not choose to accept it and publish it or not.
Saying they are a 'service provider' instead of a 'content provider' is as ridiculous as an art magazine that publishes photos sent in by readers claiming that they aren't responsible for any child pornography in their last issue because they just provide a publishing 'service'. That might hold if readers were publishing their own magazines, and they were just printing what the readers submitted... but if the photos are published in their trademarked google magazine, then they are responsible for the content.
A little extra work for us, but we have ways internally of handling this issue without much headache.
If your going for obscurity I'd go the other way... give some old pentium 1 with a copy of tradewars2000 in a closet the name 'auth-pay-master', and the your main server something like 'help-desk-print-server';)
I think it might make sense to have a department (or at least person) that is in charge of developing, distributing, and enforcing policies that have a bearing on all forms of security... but I think you'll have a problem finding someone competent to supervise *both* the physical maintenance and server maintenance staff.
Just as your CEO is incompetent to do much of anything but is ultimately responsible for seeing that everything gets done -- solution: delegate.
Delegate overall security to someone with a firm grasp of what real security is (vs security theatre) and who has a good head for risk assessment and return-on-investment, and above all the competence to surround himself with specialized people competent in specific fields of security and you'll be fine.
Your right that will definitely result in different people managing network and physical security. But working together under one person, you won't spend millions on vault-like physical security while you have a hundred dollar linksys router protecting what's inside... or vice versa.
Great, so to work for you, in addition to Linux/Windows certs, I now need a Johnson Controls cert, journeyman electricians papers, and an endorsement for use of lethal force?
Only if your applying to be a one man security ninja hero or something. It would be far more likely though to have more than one person, each with different areas of expertise.
Do you really want your net admin to carry a gun and/or taser backed up with a hammer? Just sayin...
Not at all. But I also don't want my net security team to be part of the same group that fixes broken PCs either. And the guy in charge of physical security... I don't want him fixing broken toilets, or weeding the flower beds.
That was precisely my original point. That elevating the 'IT department' entirely is a silly move. The people who spend their time finding lost icons for execs, clearing printer jams, and replacing toner and mice, etc actually belong in facilities management reporting to the same guy as the custodial stuff.
Only in the last few years have management began to look at IT as something more than a "support" department. I have worked in companies where the IT department head reported to the Facilities Management Director (think landscaping and custodial services), who reported to the VP of Finance. Essentially, IT had no influence or budget to speak of, even when we pointed out that we were ripe for the picking when it concerned customer data and trade secrets.
Here's an interesting aside...
"landscaping and custodial services" are usually responsible for things like broken windows, doors, fixing the air conditioning in the server room, etc. If they ever got it into their heads that they too were directly responsible for the sort of things that keep people from walking into the building at night and wandering off with customer data and trade secrets they too might decide they deserve new titles and a direct line to influence policy and request budgets to increase security.
IT's role in terms of maintaining infrastructure, deploying hardware, and so on probably belongs in the same category as janitorial.
Security is separate and really should be kept separate, recognizing that you need IT Security is a good first step, but it doesn't mean necessarily moving your IT department to its own unit is necessary. I would probably start a unit in charge of security -- ALL Security, and have them monitor and interact with IT and janitorial and anyone else to manage security.
The usual behavior of "The Doe Family" is not to alter the standard configuration of their software, no matter what. So, this explains why the software was added without their knowledge.
The.net framework plug in is really no different than the Adobe Reader plugins. If you install reader, it automatically installs plugins for various installed browsers, so that they can use Adobe Reader.
If you install the latest.NET framework, it installs blugins for installed browsers, so that it can use it. If you don't install the framework, it doesn't install the plugin. You have a choice whether or not to install the framework; you can uninstall the framework, and the framework description even discloses what it is doing.
What exactly is your problem?
What it does not explain is why it has been made so difficult to remove it. Mom and Pop don't sit around reviewing add ons and then randomly deleting them, so its not like MS is protecting those users from themselves.
Its not 'so difficult to remove it'. You can uninstall the plugin manually, or remove the.net framework. The reason firefox can't uninstall it, is because it wasn't installed through firefox, and firefox doesn't have permission to modify software installed via 3rd party systems... like Windows update. Or apt-get. Yes, apt-get-- if you install a plugin through apt-get on Ubuntu, firefox can't uninstall it there either. So much for your conspiracy theory.
Let's also bear in mind that the world would not end if the add-on was deleted. It's purely optional. So, there is absolutely no reason to make it impervious to uninstall.
Its not impervious. Its just the result of being installed through windows update. The user can trivially disable it at the user level, because the decision to use a given plug-in is a simple user preference. However to actually uninstall it - you have to do that at the same privilege level it was installed at. Duh!
In WoW's case, it is a valid example. You have to pay for a license (CD-key) to use the software to connect to their service. I would also say most probably get additional licenses for the expansions. So if you didn't want to update, you will be out of the money you paid for the licenses
I disagree. If I buy a security doo-hickey that changes numbers every few seconds to access my bank account, and then stop using that bank because I disagree with changes to their fee structure or something, I'm "out the money" I paid for the doo-hickey, but that's not an "EULA" or "licensing issue". Its not like because I paid for this doo-hickey I have some special rights over the banks policies going forward.
The WoW client is the same thing. Its just a doohickey you use to access the service.
as well as whatever time left you paid them for to access their service.
While this is what they write in their terms. If you specifically disagree with their updated terms of service, they WILL refund you for the prepaid time remaining, with a determined call to customer support.
I also guarantee you, that if you were to try using the programs you paid for with a third party service (private servers), that Blizzard would try to find a way to unleash their lawyers on you, and that's not counting Blizzard also going after anyone who ran such a service and anyone who even wrote the server software.
Here, at least, you are categorically right. I think its utter and complete bullshit that Blizzard should try and restrict what you do with the client, especially when NOT in conjunction when using their service.
(MMOs for example love to change terms and conditions like that, and refusing it essentially disables the software you've paid for. No fallback to using the old version with the old conditions or anything. At least theoretically you can refuse to install even a Windows security patch if it tries to retrofit the EULA, but you can't refuse a WoW patch without essentially disabling your software and forfeiting your remaining paid time.)
Lousy example. WoW is a bona-fide service that simply requires software to access. If you refuse to upgrade your software, you can, but you can no longer use the service. Because you pay monthly, if they change the terms of service, and you aren't happy with it, you can cancel the service. You DON'T have a contractual agreement to receive the service under the original terms.
The only possible counter argument would be those who prepay multiple months at a time; THEY might be able to argue that WoW can't change the terms of service on them until they renew. But at the end of the day, its a video game, and if push game to shove, if those users got up in arms over it and sued WoW, all they'd get back is the balance on their account. -- and they could accomplish that with a determined call to customer support. I know. I've done it.
If that's the case, then why are netbooks flying off the shelves in the midst of a depression?
Same reason ipods are still flying off the shelves. Its a different product that fills a different need.
Netbooks and pda phones are cheap portable email/browser devices. But that's not what people need from their 'main computer' ( which might be a full size laptop). Practically nobody I know that has a 'netbook' doesn't also have access to a computer stashed somewhere. The netbook holds a bit of data, and does their email/browsing, but they still go to their computer to manage their photos, mp3s, and so on.
Now think how much more useful that "suitable hardware" is with a real operating system that doesn't require 2GB of RAM to run Notepad without swapping.
Define useful?
Hell FreeBSD will run quite happily run on a 512MB machine with Compiz. W/o the snazzy OpenGL-accelerated wm (like using windowmaker instead), it'll run on an 64MB machine fairly well. It FLIES on a 2Ghz machine w/ 2GB of RAM and beats the disk much less than Vista will.
Yeah, because the average Windows user will be able to get what they want to get done with FreeBSD. Give me a freaking break. People need more than just to browse the web, send email, and run notepad.
They are going to want to do simple things like plug their iPhone or Blackberry in and sync. They are going to want to send photos from their digital camera. They want to play DVDs. Download music from iTunes. And video chat with their friends on MSN or Yahoo with their webcam. They want to push the scan-to-email button on their scanner and have it do just that.
Most of the above ranges from possible but complicated to get working to outright not worth the effort even on something like Ubuntu. And even harder on FreeBSD.
And a 64MB machine? "Runs OK"? Sure whatever. If it chokes on youtube its not good enough.
OS X Tiger ran great on a 450mhz G4 w/ 512MB RAM. It was even usable on a 500mhz G3 iBook w/ 384MB. OS X 10.4 has all the features Vista was touting and then some.
I have those. A G4 Powerbook. Chokes on Youtube to the point its not usable. 'nuff said. I have another 450MHz G4 Tower, and it runs "ok" after spending a few putting in a DVDRW, more RAM, and a new video card.
Just because Win7 "sucks less" doesn't mean MS deserves another chance.
Sucks less is exactly how I characterize successive versions of OSX from 10.0 onwards. And frankly I think performance-wise, it still sucks... and even Apple agrees -- since snow leopoard sounds to be mostly performance improvments.
Its also a fair characterization of Ubuntu. Each new version is less hassle to get running than the previous one.
And yes, I've used Vista. The 35 Vista machines we've been saddled with at work have been the biggest pains in our ass since they were purchased.
Care to elaborate on why?
And anyone that willingly has DRM of that magnitude shoved down their throat on their own personal machine deserves what they get.
Don't get me wrong, i think DRM is evil, but its not like Vista has EVER gotten in my way. Of course, the fact that I avoid DRM encumbered file formats and media like the plauge, Vista has never had a reason to get in my way.
Which is why, last time I did a Vista install, both the printer and network drivers mysteriously disappeared a week later, only to mysteriously reappear the next day. New equipment, with Vista certified drivers, btw.
Just because the drivers are Vista certified doesn't mean they aren't crappy drivers.
I'm curious what the actual hardware was. I've never seen that happen on any of dozens of Vista installs. The worst Vista experience I had was a system that rebooted itself every hour. Turned out to be a bug in the motherboard BIOS that needed to be flashed - of course the guy who bought the PC spent like 6 months suffering with it, while the vendor uselessly replaced the ram, power supply, reinstalled the OS, and so on...
and this perception exists, perhaps, because Vista really DOES suck?
This perception exists because Vista had a particularly rocky launch.
I keep hearing that the problems with Vista have been solved, but every time (yes, EVERY time) I have tried Vista, or set it up for someone, I have had problems. I simply no longer believe any claims that Vista has been fixed.
What can I say, I've setup Vista dozens of times now, and I've seen plenty of problems (especially early on). But I've seen plenty of problem free installs too. If you use suitable hardware, and don't depend on shitty legacy software, its perfectly fine. If you have problems EVERY time you try Vista that tells me you aren't qualifying the hardware/software well.
And at the end of the day, for people who CAN run Vista, they are usually better off with it. The security situation with it out of the box is signifiantly improved over previous versions. And that's Vista's main value - better security..... Microsoft's made several blunders with Vista, but failing to realize that consumers even today in this malware cesspool that XP is still don't view security as a feature was one of them.
And worse, that everytime a user ran into shitty software that copied its dll's into the system32 folder everytime it launched, re-registered its COM components evertime you accessed a menu item, stored its user settings in the program files folder, and violated every other bit of security common sense and windows developer guideline you can imagine -- the users blame vista for being incompatible or throwing up UAC prompts... instead of blaming the vendors for writing this garbage in the first place, and demanding that they get things right.
One minor point that they haven't 'fixed'. The economy still sucks. I doubt seriously people are going to drop for new hardware or another $300 bucks for an OS that offers nothing substantial that isn't already do-able in XP.
This is tired argument. What did XP really bring to the table that Windows 2000 didn't already have? Nothing. What was the argument to justify upgrading from Windows 2000 to XP? Nothing. What about from Windows 98/ME to XP Home? Sure, at least that upgrade brought you stability improvements, but you needed significant hardware upgrades for XP to run fine on a 98 machine... to the point that you were usually better off buying a new PC...
Pretty nearly all versions of Windows are primarily sold with new hardware, not as 'upgrades'. There has rarely been a valid economic argument that made an upgrade worth it, except for 'enthusiasts' and 'developers', both of which are pretty niche (although/. of course skews to precisely that demographic, so our perceptions -here- are skewed.)
Right now MS is suffering because people at large are holding off buying PCs entirely because they don't want Vista. All Microsoft really needs to do is get people happy with the idea of Windows 7 on their new PC purchase to get things going again.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out. The driver situation has significantly improved. And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"; and most of the people who think it sucks haven't even tried it, and won't.
Sorry to say, but you were fooled (just like all of us).
No, actually I wasn't.
You could *never* dock a projectile...
Of course you could. Find a monster with a slow moving projectile... an imp, or those things that threw the green balls, or the big floating heads... and find a steep staircase. They'd fire at you, and it would come right at you at whatever your elevation was (auto aim), and you could trivially dodge it simply by moving forwards down staircase, and the projectile would fly harmlessly over your head.
that's why you never need to aim up/down.
While its true you couldn't control your aim vertically, because it auto-aimed vertically, it didn't always work, and you often had to back up before it would kick in. If there was a ledge with a bad guy on it, and you ran too close to it and fired, instead of hitting the guy at the top, your weapon would harmlessly bounce off the wall *below* him.
I insist, try to find *any* map where you could cross under *and* over a bridge.
I *know* that you can't. I *know* that was a limitation of the rendering engine and map editor. But its immaterial. But that isn't a requirement for 3D. Its true the map was limited to a 'deformed plane', but it still carved out a 3D space that you could move in.
You don't need bridges to have a 3d world. If you made a half life counterstrike map of an empty field with some barrels and sandbags for cover, it would still be a 3D game.
I build a couple of deathmatch maps on my own, and that's how I remembered it... it's been a while, so I still can be probed wrong.
No. You are quite right about the map limitations. You are just wrong in that it wasn't 3D.
Not really, think about games like Doom, you moved on a plane that happens to be deformed on 3 dimensions. There was no real up/down...
Yes there was.
you could never pass under a bridge,
Yes. A map design and rendering engine limitation.
And you could only move on a 2D plane.
Not exactly. You could move freely in a 3D space limited to being an arrangement of connected non-overlapping rooms, with different floor and ceiling heights. But it was possible to freely move in 3D within that space, within the confines of the simple gravity model. But, for example, you could be below an incoming projectile, or above it and not be hit. You could move vertically by jumping off a ledge, or riding elevators. This would not be possible in a 2D plane, even a deformed one. In a 2D plane if the projectile passed through your x/y coordinate you would be hit. Doom had a z-coordinate. And it mattered.
But this plane was deformed to give you the illusion that you where moving on 3D.. clever!... and, yes, 2.5D.
It wasn't an illusion. *You* were moving in 3D. The 3D rendering engine had serious limitations, but it was 3D.
Doom was an honest to goodness 3D game. It had 2D sprites, and the level design was seriously constrained by the rendering engine, but it was as 3D as MS flight simulator.
Now wolfenstein-3D on the other hand... that would make for a better argument.
So if he'd been playing since launch, he could have broken 2000 hours putting in just 9 hours per week, which is pretty tame and casual for most MMORPG's, and isn't really anything I'd consider excessive. Hell I know people that watch that much TV in 3x that many hours of television per week.
Remember, that's nine hours a week for 4+ years, IN JUST FIVE ZONES. I suspect if spent that much time in just the 5 zones he listed, he's spent even more time, EVERYWHERE ELSE.
By stealing hamburgers or other physical products, you deny someone else the use of that product, it costs resources, etc.
What difference does that make? You can bleat that its "not the same thing", but in this particular argument they are. Plain old fashioned theft is as far as businesses are concerned at the profit level is just another element of doing business that impacts the profit level. Its just an abstract loss. No different from the abstract losses that occur when inventory is poorly managed, and sales are lost because you didn't have widgets in stock when you should have. Similarly illegal downloads are just another abstract loss.
Furthermore, how many thieves leave money for the stuff they stole? Some downloaders do that.
Theives and shoplifters often come back and shop at a store they previously stole from if they liked the product selection, or whatever.
They download the crack because the legally purchased software is no good.
But those people aren't infringing copyright. They don't need to download 'pirated' games. They effectively bought the game and downloaded a 3rd party add on to make it "better". Not much different than buying a car and then replacing the rims and stereo with aftermarket parts, or putting a new skin or modchip on your xbox.
How many physical products exist where a stolen version is superior to a legally purchased version?
1) Please explain how an illegally downloaded X is superior to a purchased X that was then ripped or cracked?
2) Pretty much any stolen physical property is superior to legally purchased versions if you are allowed to assume modifications have been made to the purchased version the way illegal downloads have been modified from the purchased version.
If I steal someone's DVD player after they added a region free firmware then its "superior" to the purchased version. If I steal someone's ipod after they fill it with their music and put it in an expensive case its "superior" than the purchased version. If I steal someone's car after they make performance enhancing modifications and install upgraded rims its "superior" to the purchased version. The list is pretty much endless really.
Why it makes you wonder, why does anyone buy anything? The stolen stuff is always cheaper, and if you steal the right 'version' of the stuff, its better than what you could have bought too.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and those are not the same thing in a variety of ways.
Except they are both fruit. And in this case, that's all that matters. I agree completely that there are significant ETHICAL and MORAL differences between infringement and theft. I agree that in certain arguments their are pragmatic differences between infringement and theft due to the real resources that are being consumed.
But when comparing the two in this particular argument, where both products are profitable after theft and downloading are factored in, and both can simply be represented by how much they are impacting profit then really their is no salient difference. They are both simple costs of doing business that can be, to some extent, controlled, and that if they get too out of hand can make the business itself unprofitable.
40 hours / week * 52 weeks / year = 2080 hours / year
Yep, mistyped as 40x42 when I did the calc. Still the point stands even if though I was out 400hrs. Of course, once you factor in vacation, and days off etc, the total drops below 2k again.
I am a relatively casual player and I have spent thousands of hours in those zones over the years.
"Thousands of hours"?? That's more time than most people spend at a full time job in a YEAR. (40hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr = 1680hrs/yr) and you spent thousands of hours in just 5 Warcraft zones? How much time did you spend playing WoW not in those zones?
I think your definition of "relatively casual player" is seriously askew.
Pro-infringement camp? Your choice of words exposes your biased world view.
My choice of words was about as neutral as I could find. Your reading into them a whole "biased world view" suggests that your just spoiling for a fight.
Few people are pro-infringement. Sure, they exist, but most people are simply pro-being able to use stuff. How much they insist on paying money for that varies, but it's all about the content, not the infringement. That's just a by-product of getting at the content.
You could make the same argument about thieves. After all, they aren't in it for the thieving; they are simply pro getting stuff, and how much they insist on paying for it varies, but its all about the stuff not the thieving. The thieving is just a by-product of getting the stuff.
Yeah, it was a pretty retarded argument when you made it too.
You seem to live in a fairy tale land where there's a magical dial to regulate the number of downloads. Illegal downloads don't cause stuff, they are caused by stuff. If you don't like illegal downloads, you need to look at the real causes.
Again. Same applies for theft. If you don't like theft you need to look at the real causes. (After all wealthy people shoplift too, for a variety of reasons.)
Even more so, illegal downloads aren't even an interesting statistic to producers. They should only care about the number of sales. If sales and downloads both go up, they're still doing something right. If sales and downloads both go down, they're still doing something wrong. The downloads don't matter, the sales do.
The sales are critical. But the downloads do also matter. Suppose McDonalds launches a new burger and sales and profitability both go up, but employees are stealing them at a higher than usual rate too. Yeah the burger was a success and worth doing even if the theft has gone up because profitability is up, but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the employee theft problem.
A situation where downloads are impossible is simply not going to happen outside magical fairyland. All that matters is: how do you get people to buy your stuff. Stop seeing downloads as missed sales. Many of them are sales, many others would never have been sales.
Ditto for theft. A situation where it is impossible is simply not going to happen. However, we continue to seek to improve ways of finding people to buy our stuff instead of steal it.
It's been common knowledge for quite some time now. Only the industry insists on ignoring it.
Yes, its common knowledge that there is a correlation, but are they in anyway meaningfully linked. I mean, the pro-infringement camp like to point to this and say, look infringement is actually increasing sales... the more people download the more they buy.
But is that true?
Here, for example, is a simple hypothesis that explains the correlation:
People who aren't particularly interested in music aren't buying or downloading much. People who are interested in music buy and download more.
Thus the real question is:
Does downloading music actually increase the amount you buy, or is it simply the case that the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most.
A lot of downloaders have surprisingly high ethical standards. Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.
Don't kid yourself; for every one of those, there is an entire legion of people who downloaded the cracked version and never bought the legal version, or at best buy it years later in some discount bin if they had fond enough memories of it.
The only question is what percentage of those that chose to infringe it would have bought it if that was the only way to get it. Obviously, a huge swathe of them would simply have done without.
The TN panel will switch colors and brightness when you move your head somewhat anyway so how much does it really matter? It's a mess no matter what.
My favorite is the large TN panels now polluting the market... wtf... the panel is wide enough that defective color due to viewing angles are apparent without moving your head. Just panning your eyes accross the screen from left side to right side.
Actually no, my absolute favorite is TN digital photo frames, that look like shit from every angle except head on... but its a fucking photo frame, not your monitor, so its practically always seen at wierd angles. My inlaws, of course, have theirs on a shelf above eye level, so unless you climb onto a stool to look at it, the picture looks inverted....
Demand IPS panels instead.
Agreed. I couldn't be happier with my HP LP2475w. But for laptop choices are more of a hassle.
Would that be an accurate statement and if not how would you improve upon it?
Not in my opinion. They've got 11 billion in project reduced revenues for 09, and 23 billion in increased spending for 09, mostly "stimulus" and infrastrucutre spending and a bit of social program expansion (EI benefits extended a few extra weeks, etc).
So even if you generously attributed ALL 11B in reduced revenue to "income tax cuts" its pretty clear we'd have a 20B+ deficit without it.
And seriously, not all 11B can be attributed to tax cuts. That's just retarded. After all, any idiot can see that canadian businesses are facing significantly reduced income right now... and that means significantly less tax revenue, even if rates were unchanged.
Plus some of the "income tax cuts", particularly those aimed at businesses just count as more stimulus. For example they've temporarily made computer purchases for businesses a 100% tax write off, and extended a 50% tax write off on production/manufacturing capital that was going to expire. They are also eliminating a ton of import tarrifs. That sort of stuff if effectively "stimulus".
In terms of actual personal tax cuts, the really low income got a few bones, that might, if they are exactly the right demographic (married couple + multiple children + disabled + both working + combined income less than 35k) might reduce their taxes by $800 or so. Some seniors get an extra $150 a year, and the right to take less out of their RRIF (which will have some tax savings for some).
But other than the changes to the basic personal exemption, there really aren't any tax cuts that will affect me personally. Although, my business will likely take advantage of the 100% CCA on computers. And there might be some indirect opportunity in terms of all the stimulus spending.
Bottom line, there were some tax cuts, I'd hardly call them "responsible for the deficit", and a significant chunk of the tax cuts are really just "stimulus by taking less".
Whether or not stimulus is good or bad is a separate question.
Slashdot Mirror
Wine has rather good support for older apps, it's always playing catch-up, but everyone agrees it does old stuff better than Vista does. Lets suppose Vista supports 80% of the old apps, and Wine supports 83% of them (the numbers are made up, but what matters is that Wine is a few points ahead). Then out of every 102 apps (100 98/XP and 2 Vista) Wine supports about 83, and Vista supports 82. I suspect that Wine has a much better than 3% edge for older app support though, and I've assumed that wine has absolutely no support for new Vista apps.
Except that Vista is actually WAY ahead of Wine. WAY ahead. No comparison. No contest.
Vista is more compatible with previous versions of Windows than WINE is. Especially after you factor in its compatibility modes, and are prepared to 'run as administrator' things.
I don't really get your argument. In fact, I think you yourself defeated your own argument in the last paragraph, you just didn't realize it.
And no, they don't have COMPLETE or TOTAL control over the content. They have reactionary control, but that's a world apart from complete control.
Of course they do. It is completely their choice that they implemented reactive control. There is nothing preventing them from pre-screening the content they publish on their website. They've simply chosen not to.
They could easily if they wanted, let you submit a video, provide you a link to that video and call it a day. What you do with that link is up to you. They'd merely be provided you the SERVICE of hosting the video for you.
But google then takes the next step, and publishes the video you submitted to them through their branded video site, alongside ads, for their sole benefit. At that point they are a content provider, and should take responsibility for what they show. If that means they have to screen content before they put it up for the public to view, so be it.
Whoever uploaded the video, I would think would be the provider of the content, while having Google as providing a service that allows it's users to share their videos.
No. I disagree strongly here. Providing 'generic webspace' or even 'video hosting' should qualify as provider of a service, but something like youtube or google video is, in my opinion, clearly a different case.
Youtube and Google Video are branded sites that they have COMPLETE control and discretion over. They decide how it looks, what they'll accept, they decide what advertising is on the site, it is THEIR site. Not yours.
While a given video itself might be yours, they aren't merely hosting it for you. They are providing the end-to-end user experience in a branded manner that they exercise total control over.
Users are given a complete google or youtube branded site that is managed and controlled by them. They allow you to upload videos -- but they decide what they accept, what it looks like, how users use it, everything.
When you visit my site, you have no idea who is providing me the service, unless I decide to put their name up there or something or you go digging at the technical level. With Youtube or Google Video ... its their site, not mine. I can upload them my video, and they may or may not choose to accept it and publish it or not.
Saying they are a 'service provider' instead of a 'content provider' is as ridiculous as an art magazine that publishes photos sent in by readers claiming that they aren't responsible for any child pornography in their last issue because they just provide a publishing 'service'. That might hold if readers were publishing their own magazines, and they were just printing what the readers submitted... but if the photos are published in their trademarked google magazine, then they are responsible for the content.
A little extra work for us, but we have ways internally of handling this issue without much headache.
If your going for obscurity I'd go the other way... give some old pentium 1 with a copy of tradewars2000 in a closet the name 'auth-pay-master', and the your main server something like 'help-desk-print-server' ;)
I think it might make sense to have a department (or at least person) that is in charge of developing, distributing, and enforcing policies that have a bearing on all forms of security... but I think you'll have a problem finding someone competent to supervise *both* the physical maintenance and server maintenance staff.
Just as your CEO is incompetent to do much of anything but is ultimately responsible for seeing that everything gets done -- solution: delegate.
Delegate overall security to someone with a firm grasp of what real security is (vs security theatre) and who has a good head for risk assessment and return-on-investment, and above all the competence to surround himself with specialized people competent in specific fields of security and you'll be fine.
Your right that will definitely result in different people managing network and physical security. But working together under one person, you won't spend millions on vault-like physical security while you have a hundred dollar linksys router protecting what's inside... or vice versa.
Great, so to work for you, in addition to Linux/Windows certs, I now need a Johnson Controls cert, journeyman electricians papers, and an endorsement for use of lethal force?
Only if your applying to be a one man security ninja hero or something. It would be far more likely though to have more than one person, each with different areas of expertise.
Do you really want your net admin to carry a gun and/or taser backed up with a hammer? Just sayin...
Not at all. But I also don't want my net security team to be part of the same group that fixes broken PCs either. And the guy in charge of physical security... I don't want him fixing broken toilets, or weeding the flower beds.
That was precisely my original point. That elevating the 'IT department' entirely is a silly move. The people who spend their time finding lost icons for execs, clearing printer jams, and replacing toner and mice, etc actually belong in facilities management reporting to the same guy as the custodial stuff.
Only in the last few years have management began to look at IT as something more than a "support" department. I have worked in companies where the IT department head reported to the Facilities Management Director (think landscaping and custodial services), who reported to the VP of Finance. Essentially, IT had no influence or budget to speak of, even when we pointed out that we were ripe for the picking when it concerned customer data and trade secrets.
Here's an interesting aside...
"landscaping and custodial services" are usually responsible for things like broken windows, doors, fixing the air conditioning in the server room, etc. If they ever got it into their heads that they too were directly responsible for the sort of things that keep people from walking into the building at night and wandering off with customer data and trade secrets they too might decide they deserve new titles and a direct line to influence policy and request budgets to increase security.
IT's role in terms of maintaining infrastructure, deploying hardware, and so on probably belongs in the same category as janitorial.
Security is separate and really should be kept separate, recognizing that you need IT Security is a good first step, but it doesn't mean necessarily moving your IT department to its own unit is necessary. I would probably start a unit in charge of security -- ALL Security, and have them monitor and interact with IT and janitorial and anyone else to manage security.
The usual behavior of "The Doe Family" is not to alter the standard configuration of their software, no matter what. So, this explains why the software was added without their knowledge.
The .net framework plug in is really no different than the Adobe Reader plugins. If you install reader, it automatically installs plugins for various installed browsers, so that they can use Adobe Reader.
If you install the latest .NET framework, it installs blugins for installed browsers, so that it can use it. If you don't install the framework, it doesn't install the plugin. You have a choice whether or not to install the framework; you can uninstall the framework, and the framework description even discloses what it is doing.
What exactly is your problem?
What it does not explain is why it has been made so difficult to remove it. Mom and Pop don't sit around reviewing add ons and then randomly deleting them, so its not like MS is protecting those users from themselves.
Its not 'so difficult to remove it'. You can uninstall the plugin manually, or remove the .net framework. The reason firefox can't uninstall it, is because it wasn't installed through firefox, and firefox doesn't have permission to modify software installed via 3rd party systems... like Windows update. Or apt-get. Yes, apt-get-- if you install a plugin through apt-get on Ubuntu, firefox can't uninstall it there either. So much for your conspiracy theory.
Let's also bear in mind that the world would not end if the add-on was deleted. It's purely optional. So, there is absolutely no reason to make it impervious to uninstall.
Its not impervious. Its just the result of being installed through windows update. The user can trivially disable it at the user level, because the decision to use a given plug-in is a simple user preference. However to actually uninstall it - you have to do that at the same privilege level it was installed at. Duh!
In WoW's case, it is a valid example. You have to pay for a license (CD-key) to use the software to connect to their service. I would also say most probably get additional licenses for the expansions. So if you didn't want to update, you will be out of the money you paid for the licenses
I disagree. If I buy a security doo-hickey that changes numbers every few seconds to access my bank account, and then stop using that bank because I disagree with changes to their fee structure or something, I'm "out the money" I paid for the doo-hickey, but that's not an "EULA" or "licensing issue". Its not like because I paid for this doo-hickey I have some special rights over the banks policies going forward.
The WoW client is the same thing. Its just a doohickey you use to access the service.
as well as whatever time left you paid them for to access their service.
While this is what they write in their terms. If you specifically disagree with their updated terms of service, they WILL refund you for the prepaid time remaining, with a determined call to customer support.
I also guarantee you, that if you were to try using the programs you paid for with a third party service (private servers), that Blizzard would try to find a way to unleash their lawyers on you, and that's not counting Blizzard also going after anyone who ran such a service and anyone who even wrote the server software.
Here, at least, you are categorically right. I think its utter and complete bullshit that Blizzard should try and restrict what you do with the client, especially when NOT in conjunction when using their service.
(MMOs for example love to change terms and conditions like that, and refusing it essentially disables the software you've paid for. No fallback to using the old version with the old conditions or anything. At least theoretically you can refuse to install even a Windows security patch if it tries to retrofit the EULA, but you can't refuse a WoW patch without essentially disabling your software and forfeiting your remaining paid time.)
Lousy example. WoW is a bona-fide service that simply requires software to access. If you refuse to upgrade your software, you can, but you can no longer use the service. Because you pay monthly, if they change the terms of service, and you aren't happy with it, you can cancel the service. You DON'T have a contractual agreement to receive the service under the original terms.
The only possible counter argument would be those who prepay multiple months at a time; THEY might be able to argue that WoW can't change the terms of service on them until they renew. But at the end of the day, its a video game, and if push game to shove, if those users got up in arms over it and sued WoW, all they'd get back is the balance on their account. -- and they could accomplish that with a determined call to customer support. I know. I've done it.
Oh, really?
Yes. Really.
If that's the case, then why are netbooks flying off the shelves in the midst of a depression?
Same reason ipods are still flying off the shelves. Its a different product that fills a different need.
Netbooks and pda phones are cheap portable email/browser devices. But that's not what people need from their 'main computer' ( which might be a full size laptop). Practically nobody I know that has a 'netbook' doesn't also have access to a computer stashed somewhere. The netbook holds a bit of data, and does their email/browsing, but they still go to their computer to manage their photos, mp3s, and so on.
Now think how much more useful that "suitable hardware" is with a real operating system that doesn't require 2GB of RAM to run Notepad without swapping.
Define useful?
Hell FreeBSD will run quite happily run on a 512MB machine with Compiz. W/o the snazzy OpenGL-accelerated wm (like using windowmaker instead), it'll run on an 64MB machine fairly well. It FLIES on a 2Ghz machine w/ 2GB of RAM and beats the disk much less than Vista will.
Yeah, because the average Windows user will be able to get what they want to get done with FreeBSD. Give me a freaking break. People need more than just to browse the web, send email, and run notepad.
They are going to want to do simple things like plug their iPhone or Blackberry in and sync. They are going to want to send photos from their digital camera. They want to play DVDs. Download music from iTunes. And video chat with their friends on MSN or Yahoo with their webcam. They want to push the scan-to-email button on their scanner and have it do just that.
Most of the above ranges from possible but complicated to get working to outright not worth the effort even on something like Ubuntu. And even harder on FreeBSD.
And a 64MB machine? "Runs OK"? Sure whatever. If it chokes on youtube its not good enough.
OS X Tiger ran great on a 450mhz G4 w/ 512MB RAM. It was even usable on a 500mhz G3 iBook w/ 384MB. OS X 10.4 has all the features Vista was touting and then some.
I have those. A G4 Powerbook. Chokes on Youtube to the point its not usable. 'nuff said. I have another 450MHz G4 Tower, and it runs "ok" after spending a few putting in a DVDRW, more RAM, and a new video card.
Just because Win7 "sucks less" doesn't mean MS deserves another chance.
Sucks less is exactly how I characterize successive versions of OSX from 10.0 onwards. And frankly I think performance-wise, it still sucks ... and even Apple agrees -- since snow leopoard sounds to be mostly performance improvments.
Its also a fair characterization of Ubuntu. Each new version is less hassle to get running than the previous one.
And yes, I've used Vista. The 35 Vista machines we've been saddled with at work have been the biggest pains in our ass since they were purchased.
Care to elaborate on why?
And anyone that willingly has DRM of that magnitude shoved down their throat on their own personal machine deserves what they get.
Don't get me wrong, i think DRM is evil, but its not like Vista has EVER gotten in my way. Of course, the fact that I avoid DRM encumbered file formats and media like the plauge, Vista has never had a reason to get in my way.
Which is why, last time I did a Vista install, both the printer and network drivers mysteriously disappeared a week later, only to mysteriously reappear the next day. New equipment, with Vista certified drivers, btw.
Just because the drivers are Vista certified doesn't mean they aren't crappy drivers.
I'm curious what the actual hardware was. I've never seen that happen on any of dozens of Vista installs. The worst Vista experience I had was a system that rebooted itself every hour. Turned out to be a bug in the motherboard BIOS that needed to be flashed - of course the guy who bought the PC spent like 6 months suffering with it, while the vendor uselessly replaced the ram, power supply, reinstalled the OS, and so on...
and this perception exists, perhaps, because Vista really DOES suck?
This perception exists because Vista had a particularly rocky launch.
I keep hearing that the problems with Vista have been solved, but every time (yes, EVERY time) I have tried Vista, or set it up for someone, I have had problems. I simply no longer believe any claims that Vista has been fixed.
What can I say, I've setup Vista dozens of times now, and I've seen plenty of problems (especially early on). But I've seen plenty of problem free installs too. If you use suitable hardware, and don't depend on shitty legacy software, its perfectly fine. If you have problems EVERY time you try Vista that tells me you aren't qualifying the hardware/software well.
And at the end of the day, for people who CAN run Vista, they are usually better off with it. The security situation with it out of the box is signifiantly improved over previous versions. And that's Vista's main value - better security..... Microsoft's made several blunders with Vista, but failing to realize that consumers even today in this malware cesspool that XP is still don't view security as a feature was one of them.
And worse, that everytime a user ran into shitty software that copied its dll's into the system32 folder everytime it launched, re-registered its COM components evertime you accessed a menu item, stored its user settings in the program files folder, and violated every other bit of security common sense and windows developer guideline you can imagine -- the users blame vista for being incompatible or throwing up UAC prompts... instead of blaming the vendors for writing this garbage in the first place, and demanding that they get things right.
One minor point that they haven't 'fixed'. The economy still sucks. I doubt seriously people are going to drop for new hardware or another $300 bucks for an OS that offers nothing substantial that isn't already do-able in XP.
This is tired argument. What did XP really bring to the table that Windows 2000 didn't already have? Nothing. What was the argument to justify upgrading from Windows 2000 to XP? Nothing. What about from Windows 98/ME to XP Home? Sure, at least that upgrade brought you stability improvements, but you needed significant hardware upgrades for XP to run fine on a 98 machine... to the point that you were usually better off buying a new PC...
Pretty nearly all versions of Windows are primarily sold with new hardware, not as 'upgrades'. There has rarely been a valid economic argument that made an upgrade worth it, except for 'enthusiasts' and 'developers', both of which are pretty niche (although /. of course skews to precisely that demographic, so our perceptions -here- are skewed.)
Right now MS is suffering because people at large are holding off buying PCs entirely because they don't want Vista. All Microsoft really needs to do is get people happy with the idea of Windows 7 on their new PC purchase to get things going again.
I think they might be missing the point, though.
In my opinion they are right.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out.
The driver situation has significantly improved.
And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"; and most of the people who think it sucks haven't even tried it, and won't.
Sorry to say, but you were fooled (just like all of us).
No, actually I wasn't.
You could *never* dock a projectile...
Of course you could. Find a monster with a slow moving projectile... an imp, or those things that threw the green balls, or the big floating heads... and find a steep staircase. They'd fire at you, and it would come right at you at whatever your elevation was (auto aim), and you could trivially dodge it simply by moving forwards down staircase, and the projectile would fly harmlessly over your head.
that's why you never need to aim up/down.
While its true you couldn't control your aim vertically, because it auto-aimed vertically, it didn't always work, and you often had to back up before it would kick in. If there was a ledge with a bad guy on it, and you ran too close to it and fired, instead of hitting the guy at the top, your weapon would harmlessly bounce off the wall *below* him.
I insist, try to find *any* map where you could cross under *and* over a bridge.
I *know* that you can't. I *know* that was a limitation of the rendering engine and map editor. But its immaterial. But that isn't a requirement for 3D. Its true the map was limited to a 'deformed plane', but it still carved out a 3D space that you could move in.
You don't need bridges to have a 3d world. If you made a half life counterstrike map of an empty field with some barrels and sandbags for cover, it would still be a 3D game.
I build a couple of deathmatch maps on my own, and that's how I remembered it... it's been a while, so I still can be probed wrong.
No. You are quite right about the map limitations. You are just wrong in that it wasn't 3D.
Not really, think about games like Doom, you moved on a plane that happens to be deformed on 3 dimensions.
There was no real up/down...
Yes there was.
you could never pass under a bridge,
Yes. A map design and rendering engine limitation.
And you could only move on a 2D plane.
Not exactly. You could move freely in a 3D space limited to being an arrangement of connected non-overlapping rooms, with different floor and ceiling heights. But it was possible to freely move in 3D within that space, within the confines of the simple gravity model. But, for example, you could be below an incoming projectile, or above it and not be hit. You could move vertically by jumping off a ledge, or riding elevators. This would not be possible in a 2D plane, even a deformed one. In a 2D plane if the projectile passed through your x/y coordinate you would be hit. Doom had a z-coordinate. And it mattered.
But this plane was deformed to give you the illusion that you where moving on 3D.. clever!... and, yes, 2.5D.
It wasn't an illusion. *You* were moving in 3D. The 3D rendering engine had serious limitations, but it was 3D.
Doom was an honest to goodness 3D game. It had 2D sprites, and the level design was seriously constrained by the rendering engine, but it was as 3D as MS flight simulator.
Now wolfenstein-3D on the other hand... that would make for a better argument.
So if he'd been playing since launch, he could have broken 2000 hours putting in just 9 hours per week, which is pretty tame and casual for most MMORPG's, and isn't really anything I'd consider excessive. Hell I know people that watch that much TV in 3x that many hours of television per week.
Remember, that's nine hours a week for 4+ years, IN JUST FIVE ZONES. I suspect if spent that much time in just the 5 zones he listed, he's spent even more time, EVERYWHERE ELSE.
By stealing hamburgers or other physical products, you deny someone else the use of that product, it costs resources, etc.
What difference does that make? You can bleat that its "not the same thing", but in this particular argument they are. Plain old fashioned theft is as far as businesses are concerned at the profit level is just another element of doing business that impacts the profit level. Its just an abstract loss. No different from the abstract losses that occur when inventory is poorly managed, and sales are lost because you didn't have widgets in stock when you should have. Similarly illegal downloads are just another abstract loss.
Furthermore, how many thieves leave money for the stuff they stole? Some downloaders do that.
Theives and shoplifters often come back and shop at a store they previously stole from if they liked the product selection, or whatever.
They download the crack because the legally purchased software is no good.
But those people aren't infringing copyright. They don't need to download 'pirated' games. They effectively bought the game and downloaded a 3rd party add on to make it "better". Not much different than buying a car and then replacing the rims and stereo with aftermarket parts, or putting a new skin or modchip on your xbox.
How many physical products exist where a stolen version is superior to a legally purchased version?
1) Please explain how an illegally downloaded X is superior to a purchased X that was then ripped or cracked?
2) Pretty much any stolen physical property is superior to legally purchased versions if you are allowed to assume modifications have been made to the purchased version the way illegal downloads have been modified from the purchased version.
If I steal someone's DVD player after they added a region free firmware then its "superior" to the purchased version. If I steal someone's ipod after they fill it with their music and put it in an expensive case its "superior" than the purchased version. If I steal someone's car after they make performance enhancing modifications and install upgraded rims its "superior" to the purchased version. The list is pretty much endless really.
Why it makes you wonder, why does anyone buy anything? The stolen stuff is always cheaper, and if you steal the right 'version' of the stuff, its better than what you could have bought too.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and those are not the same thing in a variety of ways.
Except they are both fruit. And in this case, that's all that matters. I agree completely that there are significant ETHICAL and MORAL differences between infringement and theft. I agree that in certain arguments their are pragmatic differences between infringement and theft due to the real resources that are being consumed.
But when comparing the two in this particular argument, where both products are profitable after theft and downloading are factored in, and both can simply be represented by how much they are impacting profit then really their is no salient difference. They are both simple costs of doing business that can be, to some extent, controlled, and that if they get too out of hand can make the business itself unprofitable.
40 hours / week * 52 weeks / year = 2080 hours / year
Yep, mistyped as 40x42 when I did the calc. Still the point stands even if though I was out 400hrs. Of course, once you factor in vacation, and days off etc, the total drops below 2k again.
I am a relatively casual player and I have spent thousands of hours in those zones over the years.
"Thousands of hours"?? That's more time than most people spend at a full time job in a YEAR. (40hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr = 1680hrs/yr) and you spent thousands of hours in just 5 Warcraft zones? How much time did you spend playing WoW not in those zones?
I think your definition of "relatively casual player" is seriously askew.
Pro-infringement camp? Your choice of words exposes your biased world view.
My choice of words was about as neutral as I could find. Your reading into them a whole "biased world view" suggests that your just spoiling for a fight.
Few people are pro-infringement. Sure, they exist, but most people are simply pro-being able to use stuff. How much they insist on paying money for that varies, but it's all about the content, not the infringement. That's just a by-product of getting at the content.
You could make the same argument about thieves. After all, they aren't in it for the thieving; they are simply pro getting stuff, and how much they insist on paying for it varies, but its all about the stuff not the thieving. The thieving is just a by-product of getting the stuff.
Yeah, it was a pretty retarded argument when you made it too.
You seem to live in a fairy tale land where there's a magical dial to regulate the number of downloads. Illegal downloads don't cause stuff, they are caused by stuff. If you don't like illegal downloads, you need to look at the real causes.
Again. Same applies for theft. If you don't like theft you need to look at the real causes. (After all wealthy people shoplift too, for a variety of reasons.)
Even more so, illegal downloads aren't even an interesting statistic to producers. They should only care about the number of sales. If sales and downloads both go up, they're still doing something right. If sales and downloads both go down, they're still doing something wrong. The downloads don't matter, the sales do.
The sales are critical. But the downloads do also matter. Suppose McDonalds launches a new burger and sales and profitability both go up, but employees are stealing them at a higher than usual rate too. Yeah the burger was a success and worth doing even if the theft has gone up because profitability is up, but that doesn't mean you simply ignore the employee theft problem.
A situation where downloads are impossible is simply not going to happen outside magical fairyland. All that matters is: how do you get people to buy your stuff. Stop seeing downloads as missed sales. Many of them are sales, many others would never have been sales.
Ditto for theft. A situation where it is impossible is simply not going to happen. However, we continue to seek to improve ways of finding people to buy our stuff instead of steal it.
It's been common knowledge for quite some time now. Only the industry insists on ignoring it.
Yes, its common knowledge that there is a correlation, but are they in anyway meaningfully linked. I mean, the pro-infringement camp like to point to this and say, look infringement is actually increasing sales... the more people download the more they buy.
But is that true?
Here, for example, is a simple hypothesis that explains the correlation:
People who aren't particularly interested in music aren't buying or downloading much.
People who are interested in music buy and download more.
Thus the real question is:
Does downloading music actually increase the amount you buy, or is it simply the case that the people who are most interested in music download and buy the most.
A lot of downloaders have surprisingly high ethical standards. Some purchase a legal copy, don't install it (because of DRM) and download the cracked version instead.
Don't kid yourself; for every one of those, there is an entire legion of people who downloaded the cracked version and never bought the legal version, or at best buy it years later in some discount bin if they had fond enough memories of it.
The only question is what percentage of those that chose to infringe it would have bought it if that was the only way to get it. Obviously, a huge swathe of them would simply have done without.
The TN panel will switch colors and brightness when you move your head somewhat anyway so how much does it really matter? It's a mess no matter what.
My favorite is the large TN panels now polluting the market... wtf... the panel is wide enough that defective color due to viewing angles are apparent without moving your head. Just panning your eyes accross the screen from left side to right side.
Actually no, my absolute favorite is TN digital photo frames, that look like shit from every angle except head on... but its a fucking photo frame, not your monitor, so its practically always seen at wierd angles. My inlaws, of course, have theirs on a shelf above eye level, so unless you climb onto a stool to look at it, the picture looks inverted. ...
Demand IPS panels instead.
Agreed. I couldn't be happier with my HP LP2475w. But for laptop choices are more of a hassle.
Would that be an accurate statement and if not how would you improve upon it?
Not in my opinion. They've got 11 billion in project reduced revenues for 09, and 23 billion in increased spending for 09, mostly "stimulus" and infrastrucutre spending and a bit of social program expansion (EI benefits extended a few extra weeks, etc).
So even if you generously attributed ALL 11B in reduced revenue to "income tax cuts" its pretty clear we'd have a 20B+ deficit without it.
And seriously, not all 11B can be attributed to tax cuts. That's just retarded. After all, any idiot can see that canadian businesses are facing significantly reduced income right now... and that means significantly less tax revenue, even if rates were unchanged.
Plus some of the "income tax cuts", particularly those aimed at businesses just count as more stimulus. For example they've temporarily made computer purchases for businesses a 100% tax write off, and extended a 50% tax write off on production/manufacturing capital that was going to expire. They are also eliminating a ton of import tarrifs. That sort of stuff if effectively "stimulus".
In terms of actual personal tax cuts, the really low income got a few bones, that might, if they are exactly the right demographic (married couple + multiple children + disabled + both working + combined income less than 35k) might reduce their taxes by $800 or so. Some seniors get an extra $150 a year, and the right to take less out of their RRIF (which will have some tax savings for some).
But other than the changes to the basic personal exemption, there really aren't any tax cuts that will affect me personally. Although, my business will likely take advantage of the 100% CCA on computers. And there might be some indirect opportunity in terms of all the stimulus spending.
Bottom line, there were some tax cuts, I'd hardly call them "responsible for the deficit", and a significant chunk of the tax cuts are really just "stimulus by taking less".
Whether or not stimulus is good or bad is a separate question.