Have fun getting only 100k or less of your retirement account back
Retirement accounts were not protected by FDIC insurance, since they are invested in various mutual funds and such. Most people have lost a significant fraction of their 401k despite any bailouts. Unlike financial sector salaries, I don't think 401K accounts have rebounded much, either.
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2006/pr06029.html
try again.
We don't need our deposits protected.
The FDIC already had that covered and actually makes banks LESS in need of protection, since their most important creditors, the american people who have deposits with them, can't get shafted if the bank goes bankrupt.
Just let the banks fail already. Having the FDIC cover deposits is all the bailout we need.
I like how this got promoted to level 5 even though anyone who has taken a brief course in remedial business knows that the FDIC does NOT guarantee insurance on all funds, and for those funds, it is only insured up to 100,000$.
Have fun getting only 100k or less of your retirement account back
GG, better start reading other blogs
Your country as a whole will have a heavier emphasis on foreign policy which can lead to bad situations like China or any other country getting into a war, which inevitably makes their problems ours.
So then we have a bunch of smart people trying to manage something we don't have and our economy tanks until we can find someone who can sustain our demand.
Pros/Cons with either situation, but that's politics
They'll bump up the datacaps when they get enough money from the people that go over the limit and then complain enough to clog up their customer support lines.
Business as usual...
Let me first begin by saying, let's have some foresight here fellow Slashdot readers. If the DVD business has been increasingly difficult for Netflix to maintain, and considering when they did change the price plans, most people dropped the DVD package but kept the instant video. Why would you try to push a market that is doomed to fail especially with the rise of instant media players for the TV and applications for phones/tablets?
I would bet they have enough subscribers on their own right now to push this idea... considering they already have. I like how you all are trying to criticize a CEO for his business strategy but I think you should let their business speak for it first.. I think this is a good idea and only time will tell, I'm sorry if you're hurt that you'll have to go to another website for your DVD shipping service, but in all honesty, the DVD is dying market. Why should I ship myself a DVD if I can buy a media streamer where I can also rent or buy movies? (waiting for every angry technologist to tell me I'm wrong. meanwhile, not realizing that they're the minority in the market... especially the minority that's smart enough to pirate something if it really wants it)
This is how I look at it... you may have to sign up with two different webpages to have them hit your credit card but in return it's cheaper than having the combined Netflix instant/dvd package. ALSO, you're getting the option to combine a gamefly like service with a movie rental service. And, as the CEO said in the article, they'll be able to focus on using their capital for more movie licenses for the people (majority) who use Netflix for their streaming services.
Having said all this, Quixster is still a lame name.
Will further hype the tablet craze.... however, I am very curious as to what they could add to a tablet now to make it more appealing to everyone else (people who type) which is how I could see the Acer CEO saying such a thing... but since Google/Apple/Samsung have and will keep investing in tablets, I wouldn't be surprised to see the hype at least stay around until something better comes out. (folder pcs? I forget how you refer to them, basically 2 tablets that fold together... pretty much like a laptop >_)
You know what else I find fascinating? Apple products do extremely well in recessions... I went to the mall the other day in King of Prussia and it was like a ghost town EXCEPT for the Apple Store which was about to bust from so many people fiddling with their products...
I'm surprised by the amount of different viewpoints represented by tech-geeks here. However, having said that, it's ultimately unsettling because it would seem most people have no idea about concepts in macro-economics.
So, I thought I'd compile a few points for people to take into account before they make a final conclusion about this situation we're in (No, not just America, the world)
1. This is NOT the first time we’ve raised the debt ceiling.
2. Most countries peg their currency off of ours, which allows us a lot of freedom when it comes to dealing with debt. We may owe a lot of money but there are countless countries who owe AMERICA a lot of money. So for instance, China is so successful when it comes to cheaper prices because it will lower their prices based on our dollar so that they can keep the same level of competitive advantage. China does own a lot of our deficit but without our demand they are worthless (for the time being)
3. We have done a lot of favors. Most notable mentions are to Japan, Germany, and China after World War 2 because the United States paid for most of the rebuilding and aid that went into reestablishing these great nations. (and must I mention, we didn’t ask for that back yet)
4. Back before World War 2, we originally got off the gold standard for multiple reasons but the biggest one being, A DEBT THE US COULD NOT COVER that includes, social programs like SOCIAL SECURITY, and I don’t know, a more well known problem, World War 1. Germany got off the gold standard a long time ago because they needed to pay for WW1 and because they were already in a deficit.
5. Adding more debt is a bad thing, AU CONTRAIR my lads, if you look at history, it would seem most times we needed to spend money to get out of a recession but we have a tough time dealing with after-effects, or basically, inflation. The way we’ve dealt with it is basically by sitting still, we haven’t done anything. We’re supposed to reduce the budget but we never do, no one really ever does by that much. Think about it, my grandfather always said blablabla icecream use to be 5 cents, well now it’s 2 dollars but our quality of living is still the same if not higher.
A final, moot point.
We will never rid ourselves of debt, especially with a system that makes money out of thin air by adjusting credit regulations. It is inevitable; we cannot and will not go back to a gold standard When it comes down to it, we can borrow as much money as we’d like so long as the US still stands as the international market-place for the world. We no longer are a manufacturing nation credit has become our bread and butter. It all just comes down to whether the bank will give us more credit should they, no.. Will they? Yes. Why? Because the United States with a limited budget is bad for everyone.
People pay us to police the world
1. spoofing an IP will not get you past MAC address filtering
You don't have to spoof your IP address at all. Just spoof the MAC address and let DHCP take care of the IP address.
This, sorry, that is what I originally meant.. thanks for correcting me
What additional security measures can be taken to thwart script kiddies like this guy? Is MAC address filtering + WEP/WPA encryption (or one of those) sufficient security. At this point I want to shut the fucking WiFi off, but there are others in the household who wouldn't go for that.
Well, if he was an uber skilled script kiddie, he could just spoof one of the allowed IP's which isn't hard to do at all considering 'script-kiddies' have been hacking into government affiliates as of late...
The other day, after reading yet another news story about the censorship moves in Australia and more PROTECT IP stuff, I decided that it was time to try out configuring Privoxy to forward everything via SOCKS5 to Tor. I was expecting a much bigger performance hit than I actual did, though, which was a pleasant surprise. Sure, its annoying having to enter CAPTCHA tags for Google all the time, but that's really not that big of a hassle. For the less technical people, Vidalia + the Tor Button for Firefox are pretty much fool proof. Between advertisers, stories about repression of online descent in the middle east and asia, Facebook and Google tracking people all the damned time, etc, I think (or, at least, I would like to think) that it might only be a matter of time before more and more 'normal' people, even those who really, truely, have nothing to hide, start doing something similar.
When Comcast starts filtering port 9050 like they do with 25, then we'll know we've pretty much lost the Internet once and for all. But hey, at least the Department of State supports Internet freedom in China, right? pffft.
Tor and Privoxy is not a guaranteed way to protect your anonymous behavior... just sayin'
This is not a bill to be passed, but a Court ruling. It is much harder to circumvent Court rulings that somethign is unconstitutional than it is to circumvent a bill that outlaws some government action. The reason it is harder to circumvent Supreme Court rulings is that the Court gets very salty when you try to go around their clear meaning. If the Court rules that a certain action by the government is unconstitutional, the government has to show that the circumvention they came up with represents a different category of behavior. Further, lower courts often extend Supreme Court rulings in ways which limit such circumvention.
You'd like to hope so, but I doubt the CIA or NSA cares about due process. And if you do in-fact think the checks and balances system works like it should, you're severely mistaken. The first example I could find... "The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit an alien who is unauthorized to work in the United States. While IRCA imposed civil and criminal penalties on employers who violate this provision (when it is actually enforced by the Justice Department), it restricts the ability of states to implement similar penalties with one conspicuous exception. The federal law (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2)) specifically allows states to impose sanctions on such employers “through licensing and similar laws.” That is exactly what Arizona did in 2007 when it passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA)." Supreme Court rulings often come under question because similar cases keep coming back to them even though they supposedly made a decision 'x' years beforehand. The most important thing to realize is that it's often too hard to even get the audience of the Supreme Court, so what if the government gets in trouble for wiretapping you, the judiciary system can't just tell the CIA to shove-off instantaneously. Let's see, this case is originally from 2008, that's actually pretty quick whereas some appeals can take ten years. By that time, they will have long forgotten what they actually did, and ohhh, maybe they'll do an investigation.. maybe So, even then, if they can't wiretap you for prolonged periods of time, they'll just get a warrant after wiretapping you for a short amount of time.. (which is what I predict from this case, they will allow warrantless searches for an acceptable amount of time and then just go on with their daily lives. Big deal, the checks and balances system is way out of wack, they'll send a piece of paper to the CIA and they'll just add it to the pile that's already there. How many people have ever been indicted from the CIA.... I'll answer that for you, only the people who have released classified information. GG
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
