I'm sorry, but the savings you get from hiring inexpensive (read: incompetent) staff is being reflected in Microsoft's TCO calculations (represented by charging more for *nix admins). If you want to ignore the costs of malware, you're going to have to REDUCE the costs of malware, and that's going to increase the cost of staff, as they will need to be better trained, and thus, more expensive.

Your arguments come across to me as someone who wants to do something they know has a significant chance of failing, but only count the successes when someone asks how well that something works. Malware is a real cost, and by that I mean costs real money. All the foot stomping in the world isn't going to pay these real costs, so counting how much it's going to cost (or at least estimating on past experiences) when planning your budget is the only rational way to do things. You might get away with proclaiming that malware costs just don't count in some Marketing department some where, but if you went to Accounting with that same line, they'd point and laugh at you.

Oh, c'mon. Zombies would not be nearly as ubiquitous in modern culture without MJ's groundbreaking documentary on the subject.

Posting to undo accidental redundant mod...

A first post that expresses an opinion other than letting us know the temperature of some urine, and I go and hit redundant of all things. Sorry.

80% power efficiency.
 

The party flag you're waving seems to have flapped in front of your eyes.

One more time, for the slow kids... BOTH MAJOR U.S. PARTIES ARE CORRUPT. The Republicans are going to vote for this just as surely as the Democrats will. You and your "loyalist" (remember where we've used that word before, historically?) friends are just as slow on the uptake as the people who still think that Obama represents some kind of "change". Our only hope as a nation is to band together and shed ourselves of both infected limbs. Unfortunately the "my party is better than your party" games are apparently too fun, and will continue until we are inconsequential at best.

I know you don't want to hear it, and you've got "but but but" trembling on your lips, but it's so obvious that people really have to WANT to believe in their party to avoid seeing the (very thinly veiled) truth. The simple fact is that, like the Democrats before you, hoping that YOUR party is going to come to the rescue is the utmost in childlike naivety. Hell, it was even oh-so-slightly understandable from the Democrats, because at least that party was PRETENDING they were going to change to course of the nation, no matter how transparent that lie was (voting records are more indicative than speeches), you Republicans have nothing to offer by way of rhetoric other than "the Democrats suck" and some vague and uneducated mumbling about communism.

In short, stop the Republican trumpet call, it will do nothing but fail you, just as it failed you with Bush, just as the Democrats were failed by Obama and Clinton. The partisan squabbling does nothing other than to cement the control of those who don't give the slightest thought toward neither your wellbeing nor your freedom.

I'm frankly tired of this strawman argument. What once again sounds like common sense coming from talking points memos falls apart at the slightest realistic glimpse.

Here.

I'll summarize because you're probably not going to read it.

3 main points:

1. The vast majority of subprime loans were originated by institutions not subject to CRA oversight.

2. If you add up to the total value of all subprime loans, not just those in default, but all of them, the figure you get is about $1.5 trillion, an insignificant portion of the current crash's losses. Remember, that's all the loans, not the bad ones.

3. (this is the point that shatters your argument) The rate of loan default in CRA-generated mortgages is much lower than the national average.

Frankly, main street didn't have either the money or influence to pull off the activities you're trying to credit them with.

Or it might be because 30 years of supply-side greedfest has destroyed our economy... One of the two. Yeah, it's probably because they're evil though, because slashdotters are too stupid to notice something like economics but we all consult our priests and/or crystal balls daily.

Nid ad hominem though, I really felt part of a group there for a second.

I apologize for the rudeness (I was having a bad morning). I also concur with your conclusion.

[citation needed]

Not everyone to the left of you is a Communist. I believe that society is a beneficial enough structure to support, that's only radical in the eyes of an extremist.

That's what I keep telling people. Unfortunately most people have bought the "wasted vote" lie hook, line and sinker. Last election I managed to successfully convince quite a few people that their ideal candidate was either Cynthia McKinney(G), Bob Barr(L), Ron Paul(L masquerading as R) or Dennis Kucinich(G or S masquerading as D). Some even said they plan on voting for such, but later told me that they didn't want their vote to be wasted. Many were convinced that a vote for McKinney was a vote for McCain and a vote for Barr was a vote for Obama. Therein lies the crux of the matter. People SEE the feedback loop that keeps our duopoly in power, but their response to it is to feed it further, as not to miss the bandwagon.

I myself ended up offering my vote up to the malignant gods of political maneuvering when I voted McKinney. I would rather have voted Kucinich, but I gave my vote to the Greens in order to strengthen a 3rd party. It wasn't all that bad though, as I believe I would have been pleased by a McKinney administration.

Somalia is the answer to your wildest Libertarian dreams... Bon Voyage, and good luck.

From the GGP:

From the article:

That's what I considered "the situation". In hindsight, I see that the GGP was probably referring strictly to the diversion.

More from the article:

You're right, it doesn't specifically say anybody was turned down, though it honestly seems a silly conclusion that an emergency room at a major University hospital wouldn't have incoming ambulances between 1 and 3 AM, as this is not a slow period for ER workers at ANY hospital.

I also don't think this article was sensationalist. "Brief" would be the word I chose to describe it.

My mistake though, I'll readily admit that the GGP may have read the article and I was the one mistaken.

You didn't read the article did you?

The outage started Monday afternoon, after half a day of operating normally the paperwork backlog forced them to divert ambulances to other hospitals, but they still took walk-in patients.

Really? My first thought was about the insurance companies and billing. Then I read the article (silly me!) and have come to the shaky conclusion (there's not much info in the article) that it's really just a matter of not having enough staff to manually write things down when the database goes down. Something everyone here should at least peripherally understand.

Sorry to step on your rant. BTW, how could you come to the conclusion that it's just the government and not the insurers that want access to patient data? You weren't just trolling were you?

Only if the goal of society is to keep you safe and snug your whole life (you know, safe until you die). It's not, there's a balancing act being performed. Sometimes life is a little more dangerous (though not necessarily in the case we're discussing, your strawman is rather hollow) because someone else is free to do something interesting. You have to balance the positive and negative.

One final thing, the GP suggested treating the two substances the same, and you're trying to negate him or her by (poorly) implying a balance in the substances effects on society? WTF?