No, no, no. You misunderstand the word stakeholder. The public ARE stakeholders. We have several places in which the stake my be placed and held. The rich will hold the stake prior to insertion, you understand.

And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]

I would expect that, but that's not how it's going down. We should all boycott things like TPP, if we're not allowed to know what is in them, then chances are we won't like it and should be saying no.

"I personally don't care about your well being because you fucked up and I'm scared of you" mentality would be like saying, "Why should I pay taxes for public schools if I don't have kids?"

No, I'm happy to pay my taxes to put them in jail and pay for their life in jail. Once they get out my debt to them ends, I would rather they lived somewhere else. A better analogy is I'll pay for your kids to go to school, but once they graduate they're on their own.

And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]

If your point is that perhaps we have too many laws, that some of our laws penalize people for dubious crimes, I agree. I would like to see some of those laws (i.e. marijuana) removed. That said, it's still the law in most places and if you can't or won't follow the law, you clearly don't have good impulse control and I find it hard to trust you. It's not hard to not smoke pot, it's easier still to not deal pot. Just don't do it, problem solved. Feel free to campaign to get the laws changed so you can, I've got your back. Until then don't get all whiney about how unfair it is that you get branded a criminal for breaking the law, that's the definition of the word.

100% of inmates who are guilty of a crime

This sounds like the logic behind dismantling advanced/remedial classes. Let's throw everyone together and the good students can "uplift" the bad. So the good students get hurt and perform less well..

I guess you're right, I definitely feel once you fall off the wagon it's on you to get back on. Once you cross certain lines I'm personally not sure I care about your well being and simply want to minimize the chance you can hurt me again. I will grant you many people fall because they are in bad situations, were raised into crime and often don't even realize what they're doing is a crime. But that doesn't excuse anything, particularly repeat offenses.

Or he's trying to hear you reason it out and doesn't care about the answer. As far as I'm concerned there are a variety of good answers to this one that all rely on one assumption or another, some answers are more righter than others. He's going to be the guy to tell you the right answer he wants anyway.

I think earth is an oblate spheroid, so it must be the geographic north pole, which would have the property of being "a triangle" and putting you back where you started. But what hurts my head is when we use terms like north/south/west we're referring to magnetic north (usually), and I'm not sure as you make the traversal he describes you actually end up back where you started. Also i'm not sure how to rule out the south pole (geographic) you could do this same exercise.

It can't be magnetic, the earth is somewhat and unequally distended around the magnetic poles such that you don't end up exactly at the starting point by taking the indicated path, you will end up every so slightly off.

There are two north poles, and he specifically mentioned earth.

Being fired is extreme, but in at least two companies I worked for, there was a strong "you broke it, you bought it" mentality to this sort of thing. If you found a security issue, you were expected to move across the corporation until it got fixed. Derailing your actual job, your personal life, and just about any hope of happiness until it got fixed. Of course you don't report it.

The issue frequently is that IT is seen as the cost center to reduce most, so getting someone in IT to a) acknowledge it is an issue not user error/invalid use case requires champion effort, b) the IT guys that exist are marginally competent, the good ones are too expensive to work here full time, c) frequently users are told how dumb they are, so they aren't even sure if they've found an issue or "I must be doing something wrong", d) how did you find it in the first place? Were you doing something you shouldn't? HMMM?

Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones. On the Mac messages can link to your favorite message client, which also works on anything. Facetime I will concede.

Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement. And while Apple is definitely the most exclusive, I do use Gmail & Hangouts on my iPhone to talk to my wife on Android, and that works just fine and is what I use rather than Messages most of the time because we're too cheap to pay for SMS. So even the meta point is a bit contrived. Most people have ported their apps to the iPhone and the ecosystem works fine, the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).

Not to mention people hold on to televisions for 10+ years. That's not a good business for anyone in the silicon/systems space to be in.

You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple

, but future growth and earnings potential

But most of that future growth and earnings potential is going to come from some other company on the market. If you make a smartphone, you are taking money from other smartphone companies, as well as to some degree companies that make computers. Once you get successful enough, you may also be in a position to reduce margins to the companies who provide components for your smartphone, so you're taking their money too.

A little bit of money comes from "new" sources, the larger you are the more that may be available, but generally your profit comes at someone elses loss. Part of why Wall St. tolerates only a small amount of competition and we always end up with 2 or 3 real competitors.

I will not risk the safety and security of my systems by allowing them to display potentially (frequently) harmful ads.

Let's tally the bad things some ads, do:

- Play audio without permission
- Play video without permission
- Provide intentionally misleading guidance about what a click will do (i.e. "DOWNLOAD HERE!")
- Pop-ups
- Pop-overs
- Obscure material
- Render improperly/force remaining web page to render improperly
- Look really, really ugly
- Frequently provides a strong incentive for copy-cat content, 0 content websites, click-bait, plagiarized content websites to exist, and to be profitable

Let's then look at the upside:
- Provide income stream to site owner

I've got an obvious solution:
- Learn from Wall St. Journal. Paywall your content, groom it to ensure it is top quality and worth payment. Have a secure order form that is not compromised and willing to spill your CC details to everyone, ask for no more personal information than is strictly required to authorize a purchase.

Of course most of us aren't going to deal with the paywall, but if you are a site owner, and you want guaranteed revenue from your site, then that is your only option. Otherwise the arms race will continue. As far as I'm concerned the internet was far more useful before people tried to monetize it. There was 90% less content, to be sure, but the content that exists came from people who had something useful to say.

I was referring to Windows 7 of course, until Microsoft chooses to release something that can fairly be described as an upgrade.

I found 30Hz to be annoying just sitting in a GUI, I never have tried to game with 4k on any system, I doubt I will do so soon.