Because the current YouTube ting has squat to do with DMCA. The current system is a move by Google to please the major content produces and as a sign that Google is dedicated to enforce copyright law. The current problem with the current system is that is so easily abused and that is what Google should work on.

This is a plain wrong assertion. The CO2 content of the atmosphere was significantly higher in pre-historical times and the temperatures where marginally higher. BUT the difference is that CO2 used to trail behind temperature changes. This is the first time that CO2 is apparently driving the temperature change. Then again if you look at real climate science nailing it down to only C02 emission is a fools errand. The actual science is a bit more complicated and previous models have not fared very well, but then again it is based on limited data and (at the time) limited computational resources. What drives me nuts is that in most layperson circles, including politicians, it is a "us vs them" rhetoric. You bring up valid criticism on certain models (by established climate scientists) and suddenly you are depicted as gas guzzling SUV driver. (Which is far from the truth, I don't own a car, I use almost exclusively public transportation.)

I can still create an Instagram account without FB. Although I don't particularly like the FB acquisition, chances are they will not botch the entire thing.

My guess is that FB (the company) is realizing that FB (the website) will become obsolete sooner or later (think MySpace). The company is trying to move out of their single revenue stream and diversify. You can probably see more acquisitions from FB that are not in line with the FB service.

Except I have never seen a manager that can keep the timing required for the orchestra to not get out of sync. When GP said:

I know exactly what he meant. There way to many companies, especially big ones, where individual contribution/vision/whatever of managers is scant to none.

Ok I hope is is over before next fall. I am not so sure that we (West Europe) can survive this long without Russian gas.

+1 I like this.

Not legally. You give your Bank your money and own an asset called a savings or checking account. The Bank has money, why the hell should it not put it to good work?

If I licensed the software I am free to install each and every version that legally licensed. If I want to I can install Win95 on one my machines, why should I not be? The problem are the app stores with their control over the machine.

In the case of stuxnet, jumping the air gap was a piece of cake. What stuxnet did was propagate as a worm and look for a PCS7 / S7 / WinCC installation with a project that looked like a uranium refinery. This was easy because the system used to engineer the project was a normal PC, connected to the internet and all. Stuxnet then modified the project, it was just a MSSQL and Sybase call away. The modified project now contained the modified PLC program and obfuscation in the observation and maintenance system. This project was then zipped and put onto an USB drive and carried into the refinery and installed into the runtime systems. But this is nothing abnormal. As the plant was still under construction updated versions of project would be installed into the runtime as new components came online. The interesting thing about stuxnet was that the targeted nature of the attack and that data is not always data, altering the configuration can in some cases be as dangerous as executing code.

The frightening thing about this is not the existence of stuxnet, but the fact that there are still projects tainted with the stuxnet payload out there. We still occasionally see projects that need to be cleaned up, some of which are for critical infrastructure and this are only those cases where adverse behavior was detected by the operators. Who knows what the real damage is?

You mean a place like Tsaritsyn... um no Stalingrad... um no Volgograd... or Constantinople... um no Istanbul. Yes Names of places never change, ever.

So? Who gave the IAU the authority? What legal power do they have? I can create my own list of names for planetary bodies. If I get most people to use my list instead of the IAU's, what id going to happen? Nothing.

Btw, I am currently accepting bids for this solar systems' planets. Get them while they are cheap.

The problem is that you mix tools and how they are used. Fractional reserve banking is not evil in itself. It basically creates, through credits the opportunity for economic growth. That being a company has a great idea, but not the capital to realize it. The bank has the capital, but not the idea. Through a credit it is possible to realize the idea and it is a win/win situation. The company makes a great product which it sells, the bank makes a profit through the credit and maybe even the people putting money into the bank make something off of it, though savings. This is all and well when you ensure that the bank makes proper risk analysis on the credits and on average comes out on top.

What you should really be afraid of the the credit bubble. What we are currently seeing is that individuals are given credits, which means they are now spending money and helping the economy grow, but this is at the cost that in the future this person will have less money to spend, since he is repaying the credit. So the economy slumps, as a result "to help the economy" more credit is injected. This has been going on since the 60s and in totally high ways since the 80s. The result is that the economic growth is propped up though credits and growing unnaturally. The economy is extracting money from individuals more than they can afford and the only way to keep the current pace is to increase individual debt. The situation is additionally aggravated by greedy bankers which gave out sub prime credits. There will be a point where the individuals dept is so grate that the scheme can't go on. This debt fueled economic growth is the ponzi scheme.

As an interesting anecdote for this, in Germany the minimum weekly demand of an individual is estimated by tasking average demand of products and services and representing it in a "shopping basket". This is then takes as a baseline for social service handouts. Since it takes real prices, this "shopping basket" is quite a good indication of "real inflation". The interesting thing is that in the last decade this shopping basket remained somewhat in sync with inflation. This being because the big rises where in things like fuel, which hit individuals and companies equally and as a result drove prices up and margins down.

They don't hate inflation, they love it at moderate levels. Imagine the following, there is no inflation at all. You own money, it will never lose value. This is good for you, but but banks and companies can not make anything from it. Add moderate inflation and your money slowly loses value. Now you need to do something about it so you don't lose all your money. The banks offer to work for you to preserve the value of your money, FOR A SMALL FEE. They invest the money into companies (credits) or the stock market and as a result also extract additional money. The result is that without inflation you will not even think of putting your money into stocks, bonds or similar financial instruments, cash will do the job of maintaining value. What they hate is when the inflation is so strong that is starts to eat into their profits. For example when inflation almost nullified a credit.

True that, but I was referring to:

Which is a faulty assumption.