You do have a point, however, I still agree with him not to use it. Making the choice available and having the option to say no by informing me whilst install is in progress are two different things. Only one is the "right" thing to do. This will cost them customers that say, "Man, I got this thing installed, I am just gonna uninstall Skype altogether!" And they do. When you do the right thing, you don't get backlash like that.
Actually, the buck stops with him. When he claims to be in charge, let him take the credit. To put it another way, if HE wanted to have a different style of company, then he could. And charities or not, he could do things different and still affect Microsoft in some way, I think.
Hell, at the least he could fund Linux, or GNU Hurd until it compares to commercial software. Then, THEN I can leave him alone. Sure, he realizes how hollow his life was being the richest man because of what it took to get there, but if computers were freed, then that would probably be about the best good he could ever do. Maybe I am wrong, but I see the potential of computers, the real potential, not the locked down "selling my soul to the company store" half-broken, bloated POSes that we mainly use day to day.
It matters little if you get your "fuel" from a plug or a pump, either way you have to pay someone else for it. It has nothing to do with similarities to cloud computing. In fact, with electric vehicles, one day solar power may lesson the costs and allow consumers to make their own fuel.
Yep, he's an idiot. (too?) As anyone can read, I never said they were "assets", but as the previous AC stated additional money derived from the original $1,000. That does add up to $19,000... or can't you add, you idiot?
Let's talk about how things are supposed to work: The point of all economic activity is to produce goods, not jobs. When Wal-Mart comes in and undercuts competitors, that's a good thing. Why? Because Wal-Mart's low prices indicate that they are producing and distributing goods more efficiently. Of course, the page you linked to doesn't want to concede anything at all to Wal-Mart, and so it asserts that Wal-Mart does not really save consumers money. But if consumers don't feel like they're getting something more for their money, why would they willingly shop in a newly constructed Wal-Mart, instead of continuing to shop at mom and pop stores?... The market is trying to communicate information to us through prices and wages; we should listen! Low wages is the market's way of saying, "Too many people are working in this area. Your labor would be more useful in other areas." To demand that employers pay higher wages for work that is in low demand is to ignore the market, and thus, to ignore the wishes of consumers.
To the first part of the quote, they are more efficient becasue they are in effect a monopoly. All your warez are belong to us. Buy cheaper (but less cost effective overall) goods from us, because we've driven all others out of business. It is sort of like your words below that about government charity.. a better example would be a market where many could buy and sell, istead of one company whose sole goal is to pinch every penny. That scenario is what leads to the bad things nay-sayers of Wal-Mart complain about. Just because someone CAN undercut, don't get confused and say it is absolutley a good thing.
Too much labor? How about we never have a Wal-Mart and things were stable? You are saying that just because ONE company can come in and take all the profit that is best? Give me a break.
Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites.
Ron Paul can take his paranoid, hypocritical, bigoted viewpoint and go to hell. He would make a lousy president.
You got all that from that one line? Then either you'd make the greatest president, or the best ever. Paranoid? You don't belive in the concept of evil? That there are those that do in fact want to hurt you or willing to in order to gain something? Hypocritical? Please give a citiation. Bigoted? The same... You know, I heard it said the things you hate most about others are the things you hate most about yourself.
He never said red states are more important than blue states either. Either you are buying into the FUD, or being paid to push it.
All this idiot really said is that the balance sheet has to well, balance. Perhaps he is right. Well, I know he is. But I am not yet convinced his version is what they call balancing. However, he did state the theoretical limit was $19,000 on $1000 real dollars floating around. That sounds up to twice as worse than what I was saying was happening, don't you think? $18,000>$9,000
At no time can a bank create a loan asset without having raised the funds as a loan liability (whether a bond issue, deposit or whatever). This is the basis of double entry accounting. If a bank was allowed to issue a $10,000 loan off $1,000 of deposits, the balance sheet wouldn't balance, would it?
Ah, I think I get it now, he said that he borrows some money from the bank to pay me, I have it electronically deposited and they can now loan 90% of that money out, when they "create" a loan. Nothing really happened, just some bits in a computer switched, and yet money was created out of thin air. Yes, yes they did. The already have a loan out for that money, they just made another loan out on it. There is only 1 physical set of dollars for multiple loans.
And before you say it, I am not replying to an AC, just about him. Total license to be an idiot AC is.
How about by our government instread of paying a private instituion $0.60 on the dollar to print $1? How about our government go back to printing the money themselves, instead of the Federal Reserve, who by my understanding doesn't have to let us and hasn't "requested" us to audit Fort Knox, so is there gold even really there?
Hey, I have an oceanfront property in Arizona I'm gonna sell you. It isn't on the coast, but that's ok though, because it is only worth how much someone else is willing to believe it is sitting on a really vast body of saltwater. With any luck, you may be able to pass it off, err I mean sell it and that person to the next...
Ok, so we've handed controlling money over to a banking cartel, we just get to "tell" them who we want to run it. Got it.
Of course, there is no "encouragement", only suggestions that a certain person(s) needs to be on that board, or else something bad could happen./end sarcasm
Anyone else see anything wrong with this? Am I paranoid, or are you blind? I can tell you this much, paranoia isn't paranoia if it is true, and people will kill their own family for the love of money.
You know, I would agree with you, except the proof is in the pudding. There are people that do not pay taxes, legally, because that IS the letter of the law. No matter if E. Griffin is a "nut" or not, he is right on this as best as I can tell and researched. I don't agree with everything you say either, but I still take a look at your arguements. And thanks for the name John Birch, I will check him out.;)
But that is just what they want you to think BadAnalogyGuy. Banks are FDIC insured with the main requirement being they keep 10% of deposits on hand. Example, if a postal worder deposits $1,000, then the bank can make me a loan of $900, correct? Not so fast...
What they do is take $100 of that money, and loan someone $1000. And then take another $100 and loan someone else $1,000, etc. They can loan out $10,000 on your $1,000 deposit. Now this too is a simplification, but you get the idea.
Now where did they money come from they loaned out? Why, "out of thin air" when they electronically deposited funds to the borrower's account. They need more cash on hand.. they call their "local" Federal Reserve bank and get their nice new crisp bills. Why, the Federal Reserve isn't even a government entity.. no more federal than say, Federal Express. Yet, we pay $0.60 on the dollar to them, for our government to print (borrow) money from them to pay the depositing postal worker.
Not that I disbelieve you, but do you have any citations for the costs of a Wal-Mart to a community being more than the busienss and taxes it brings in?
Instead they play it off (poorly), as if they "meant" for this to happen.
Just like the poster that didnt know what was actually said by Microsoft the first time.. you dont seem to know what they said this second time.
They didnt "play it off".. they said:
"What has happened is someone wrote an open-source driver for PCs that essentially opens the USB connection, which we didn’t protect, by design, and reads the inputs from the sensor."
Please dont reply with some crap about the 'by design' portion of the comment... its not a surprise 'bug'.. This is how they designed their other controllers. Plug it in and then read and write via USB. Thats how Microsoft does controllers.
Look, either they are playing it off, or they expected this to happen. It's good that they seem to have made a u-turn, but they again, either A. knew this was gonna happen, or B. didn't give it enough thought. In any case, they were being deceitful at some point.
True, I have a bias against them, but I have a bias against all liars. Playing word games and using doublespeak is a form of deception. Just say right out, "We don't want this and protect against it.", then say, "You know what, we see the potential, and we like where this may head."
But no, they can't (or I should say won't) just simply do it. Why is that? Because they want control. This is something it is now apparent to them that they can't control to the ability they like, but it won't stop them from trying, even if it means for now embracing.. to later extend and extinguish.
Rest assured, as soon as they change their spots, I will be the first to get behind them, or anyone else looking for success by being honest. But as long as they try to "play it off" as they do with everything, then I will be the opposite of supportive and continue to call a spade a spade.
True, test-banks do introduce a security hole. However, unless someone does something extremely wrong (more so than cheating) and the test bank has adequate security, then there is nothing wrong with a test bank. It not only is more efficient, but has a more uniform goal for multiple instructors to teach to be tested on, and keeps truly lazy professors from giving crappy easy tests. The tests are in effect vetted by all professors that use them, giving them more credibility as an accurate measure of learning. Don't be upset that the professor saved some time not having to take the time to create the test, as it is for the best.
You think he is wrong to avoid 96 hours of a "team" to put together a test? Why reinvent the wheel? Oh, to keep out cheaters. Seems he has this covered with his statistics analysis, and has taught much more than just his class a lesson of the consequences.
That's just doublespeak for, "We knew it was left open (D'oh!) , but we still had to talk tough against it because it goes against everything our souless company stands for." I wish I could believe they were being nice, but as someone pointed out, even if you were right they could have still said "Tthis is GReeeaaaTTT!" and donated 100 to some highschool. Instead they play it off (poorly), as if they "meant" for this to happen. Give me a break.
How's what? He doesn't advocate against the seperation of church and state in that article.
Ron Paul may have some decent ideas about smaller government, but he's a religious loon, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution.
So, by your definition anyone who belives in religion is a loon? Or scientist's theorys (keyword) about evolution 100%? Do you have any idea how much scientists have "known" but later were wrong?
Flamebait, really? Cool, my first erroneous negative modifier! (That I noticed...) Flamebait really does mean "I disagree and want to stifle your speech because I fear you may get the truth out...) I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Have any alternative ideas to the yellow bar of poor usability?
You do have a point, however, I still agree with him not to use it. Making the choice available and having the option to say no by informing me whilst install is in progress are two different things. Only one is the "right" thing to do. This will cost them customers that say, "Man, I got this thing installed, I am just gonna uninstall Skype altogether!" And they do. When you do the right thing, you don't get backlash like that.
Actually, the buck stops with him. When he claims to be in charge, let him take the credit. To put it another way, if HE wanted to have a different style of company, then he could. And charities or not, he could do things different and still affect Microsoft in some way, I think.
Hell, at the least he could fund Linux, or GNU Hurd until it compares to commercial software. Then, THEN I can leave him alone. Sure, he realizes how hollow his life was being the richest man because of what it took to get there, but if computers were freed, then that would probably be about the best good he could ever do. Maybe I am wrong, but I see the potential of computers, the real potential, not the locked down "selling my soul to the company store" half-broken, bloated POSes that we mainly use day to day.
It matters little if you get your "fuel" from a plug or a pump, either way you have to pay someone else for it. It has nothing to do with similarities to cloud computing. In fact, with electric vehicles, one day solar power may lesson the costs and allow consumers to make their own fuel.
Regardless of how it works, it is a scam and a sham. Our economy is built on a house of cards, or a foundation of sand, if you will.
Yep, he's an idiot. (too?) As anyone can read, I never said they were "assets", but as the previous AC stated additional money derived from the original $1,000. That does add up to $19,000... or can't you add, you idiot?
Let's talk about how things are supposed to work: The point of all economic activity is to produce goods, not jobs. When Wal-Mart comes in and undercuts competitors, that's a good thing. Why? Because Wal-Mart's low prices indicate that they are producing and distributing goods more efficiently. Of course, the page you linked to doesn't want to concede anything at all to Wal-Mart, and so it asserts that Wal-Mart does not really save consumers money. But if consumers don't feel like they're getting something more for their money, why would they willingly shop in a newly constructed Wal-Mart, instead of continuing to shop at mom and pop stores? ... The market is trying to communicate information to us through prices and wages; we should listen! Low wages is the market's way of saying, "Too many people are working in this area. Your labor would be more useful in other areas." To demand that employers pay higher wages for work that is in low demand is to ignore the market, and thus, to ignore the wishes of consumers.
To the first part of the quote, they are more efficient becasue they are in effect a monopoly. All your warez are belong to us. Buy cheaper (but less cost effective overall) goods from us, because we've driven all others out of business. It is sort of like your words below that about government charity.. a better example would be a market where many could buy and sell, istead of one company whose sole goal is to pinch every penny. That scenario is what leads to the bad things nay-sayers of Wal-Mart complain about. Just because someone CAN undercut, don't get confused and say it is absolutley a good thing.
Too much labor? How about we never have a Wal-Mart and things were stable? You are saying that just because ONE company can come in and take all the profit that is best? Give me a break.
Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites.
Ron Paul can take his paranoid, hypocritical, bigoted viewpoint and go to hell. He would make a lousy president.
You got all that from that one line? Then either you'd make the greatest president, or the best ever. Paranoid? You don't belive in the concept of evil? That there are those that do in fact want to hurt you or willing to in order to gain something? Hypocritical? Please give a citiation. Bigoted? The same... You know, I heard it said the things you hate most about others are the things you hate most about yourself.
He never said red states are more important than blue states either. Either you are buying into the FUD, or being paid to push it.
All this idiot really said is that the balance sheet has to well, balance. Perhaps he is right. Well, I know he is. But I am not yet convinced his version is what they call balancing. However, he did state the theoretical limit was $19,000 on $1000 real dollars floating around. That sounds up to twice as worse than what I was saying was happening, don't you think? $18,000>$9,000
At no time can a bank create a loan asset without having raised the funds as a loan liability (whether a bond issue, deposit or whatever). This is the basis of double entry accounting. If a bank was allowed to issue a $10,000 loan off $1,000 of deposits, the balance sheet wouldn't balance, would it?
Ah, I think I get it now, he said that he borrows some money from the bank to pay me, I have it electronically deposited and they can now loan 90% of that money out, when they "create" a loan. Nothing really happened, just some bits in a computer switched, and yet money was created out of thin air. Yes, yes they did. The already have a loan out for that money, they just made another loan out on it. There is only 1 physical set of dollars for multiple loans.
And before you say it, I am not replying to an AC, just about him. Total license to be an idiot AC is.
How about by our government instread of paying a private instituion $0.60 on the dollar to print $1? How about our government go back to printing the money themselves, instead of the Federal Reserve, who by my understanding doesn't have to let us and hasn't "requested" us to audit Fort Knox, so is there gold even really there?
Hey, I have an oceanfront property in Arizona I'm gonna sell you. It isn't on the coast, but that's ok though, because it is only worth how much someone else is willing to believe it is sitting on a really vast body of saltwater. With any luck, you may be able to pass it off, err I mean sell it and that person to the next...
Ok, so we've handed controlling money over to a banking cartel, we just get to "tell" them who we want to run it. Got it.
Of course, there is no "encouragement", only suggestions that a certain person(s) needs to be on that board, or else something bad could happen. /end sarcasm
Anyone else see anything wrong with this? Am I paranoid, or are you blind? I can tell you this much, paranoia isn't paranoia if it is true, and people will kill their own family for the love of money.
Thank you for the link. Like I mentioned, I did not disbelive it, but just wanted data for my own research. Thank you all for the links, actually.
You know, I would agree with you, except the proof is in the pudding. There are people that do not pay taxes, legally, because that IS the letter of the law. No matter if E. Griffin is a "nut" or not, he is right on this as best as I can tell and researched. I don't agree with everything you say either, but I still take a look at your arguements. And thanks for the name John Birch, I will check him out. ;)
What is wrong with Edward Griffin?
But that is just what they want you to think BadAnalogyGuy. Banks are FDIC insured with the main requirement being they keep 10% of deposits on hand. Example, if a postal worder deposits $1,000, then the bank can make me a loan of $900, correct? Not so fast...
What they do is take $100 of that money, and loan someone $1000. And then take another $100 and loan someone else $1,000, etc. They can loan out $10,000 on your $1,000 deposit. Now this too is a simplification, but you get the idea.
Now where did they money come from they loaned out? Why, "out of thin air" when they electronically deposited funds to the borrower's account. They need more cash on hand.. they call their "local" Federal Reserve bank and get their nice new crisp bills. Why, the Federal Reserve isn't even a government entity.. no more federal than say, Federal Express. Yet, we pay $0.60 on the dollar to them, for our government to print (borrow) money from them to pay the depositing postal worker.
Interested in more info, please see these links:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450#
On a side note (watch the first video), I live near Jekyll Island.
Banks create money out of thin air. It is just a big Ponzi scheme. Sooner or later, the pyramid falls...
Not that I disbelieve you, but do you have any citations for the costs of a Wal-Mart to a community being more than the busienss and taxes it brings in?
Instead they play it off (poorly), as if they "meant" for this to happen.
Just like the poster that didnt know what was actually said by Microsoft the first time.. you dont seem to know what they said this second time.
They didnt "play it off" .. they said:
"What has happened is someone wrote an open-source driver for PCs that essentially opens the USB connection, which we didn’t protect, by design, and reads the inputs from the sensor."
Please dont reply with some crap about the 'by design' portion of the comment... its not a surprise 'bug' .. This is how they designed their other controllers. Plug it in and then read and write via USB. Thats how Microsoft does controllers.
Look, either they are playing it off, or they expected this to happen. It's good that they seem to have made a u-turn, but they again, either A. knew this was gonna happen, or B. didn't give it enough thought. In any case, they were being deceitful at some point.
True, I have a bias against them, but I have a bias against all liars. Playing word games and using doublespeak is a form of deception. Just say right out, "We don't want this and protect against it.", then say, "You know what, we see the potential, and we like where this may head."
But no, they can't (or I should say won't) just simply do it. Why is that? Because they want control. This is something it is now apparent to them that they can't control to the ability they like, but it won't stop them from trying, even if it means for now embracing.. to later extend and extinguish.
Rest assured, as soon as they change their spots, I will be the first to get behind them, or anyone else looking for success by being honest. But as long as they try to "play it off" as they do with everything, then I will be the opposite of supportive and continue to call a spade a spade.
True, test-banks do introduce a security hole. However, unless someone does something extremely wrong (more so than cheating) and the test bank has adequate security, then there is nothing wrong with a test bank. It not only is more efficient, but has a more uniform goal for multiple instructors to teach to be tested on, and keeps truly lazy professors from giving crappy easy tests. The tests are in effect vetted by all professors that use them, giving them more credibility as an accurate measure of learning. Don't be upset that the professor saved some time not having to take the time to create the test, as it is for the best.
You think he is wrong to avoid 96 hours of a "team" to put together a test? Why reinvent the wheel? Oh, to keep out cheaters. Seems he has this covered with his statistics analysis, and has taught much more than just his class a lesson of the consequences.
That's just doublespeak for, "We knew it was left open (D'oh!) , but we still had to talk tough against it because it goes against everything our souless company stands for." I wish I could believe they were being nice, but as someone pointed out, even if you were right they could have still said "Tthis is GReeeaaaTTT!" and donated 100 to some highschool. Instead they play it off (poorly), as if they "meant" for this to happen. Give me a break.
Thank you for the FUD. Oh sorry, I mean no thanks.
How's this?
How's what? He doesn't advocate against the seperation of church and state in that article.
Ron Paul may have some decent ideas about smaller government, but he's a religious loon, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution.
So, by your definition anyone who belives in religion is a loon? Or scientist's theorys (keyword) about evolution 100%? Do you have any idea how much scientists have "known" but later were wrong?
This was the way to do it in the first place.
Flamebait, really? Cool, my first erroneous negative modifier! (That I noticed...) Flamebait really does mean "I disagree and want to stifle your speech because I fear you may get the truth out...) I guess.