Debts almost always spiral out of control, just like gambling or alcoholism... You start off small, but you become addicted and the problem just grows... Whoever replaces Obama will likely have much larger debts still.
Paying more tax than they are legally required to would be negligent, and open them up to lawsuits from their shareholders.
Massive price increases assuming sales didn't decrease would result in much higher profits and thus more tax...
In reality, increased prices will decrease sales unless everyone pushes up their prices.
If taxes on profits are high, then companies will simply find ways to make less profit, which means that instead of keeping revenue as profit they will find additional expenses to spend the money on such as expanding the business or spending more on staff wages etc...
Legalizing drugs wouldn't automatically decrease the law enforcement budget. Drugs being illegal actually costs money, and legalizing them would not decrease the available budget. If anything, legalized drugs would increase the available budget as legal drugs would be taxed in the same way tobacco/alcohol are.
The cops would just need to find something else to do, and there is plenty of other non drug related crime that they could investigate. Plenty of crimes get ignored by the police these days because there are insufficient resources to investigate them. If you were to reassign all the resources used to investigate drugs then there would be a lot more available to police other matters.
Even jails wouldn't necessarily lose out all that much, as while investigating other crimes the police would catch more people committing other crimes, crimes which cause harm to innocent parties (Which is often not the case with drug use).
Well under the current system your tax dollar is paying the police and jail systems to catch and lock up druggies, and if those druggies just continue to take drugs you will be paying for an endless cycle of them being released and jailed again shortly after. It's very expensive to keep someone locked up in jail.
The idea is that if drugs were legalized, the sale of them would be taxed and the revenue from those taxes would pay for rehab and education...
OSX also tends to perform worse than linux when running various open source cross platform applications... It just seems performance has never been apple's primary concern.
There are plenty of people the industry cannot buy, but under a democratic system the large established media companies can always ensure that these people never have enough mass media coverage and thus the voters aren't aware that they exist and don't vote for them.
Leaders picked by birth are basically 50/50 wether they are power hungry despots or benevolent dictators...
Politics on the other hand almost always attracts a specific kind of person, those who want power and will do whatever is necessary to acquire it. Succeeding in a democratic system requires getting enough people to vote for you, which requires sufficient media coverage otherwise the voters won't even be aware of your existence. With such a system, it's no wonder that large media companies hold so much power.
It was better when AOL came on floppies, at least those you could format and use for something else. In school, most of the warez we traded was on free ISP floppies (not just aol, several others did the same thing).
That aol email has worked consistently for a long time is luck rather than anything else, and who knows how long it will continue to work now that verizon have taken it over... Many free email providers have come and gone over the years, as have many paid ISPs.
Someone who really cares about consistency in their contact details will have registered their own domain, so that even if they had to switch hosting providers multiple times their address will remain consistent.
The problem is that virtual machines are often used to run legacy software on modern hardware, cutting out the legacy cruft by default would cut off all those users... Although having it configurable at runtime would be much easier for users than having it a compile time patch.
Some of us do make hardened builds removing unwanted crap, but having the hardened option require the extra work is more practical from a usability point of view as those of us who care most about it tend to be the most capable of making the changes.
Windows 2003, which is still supported for a short time, has to load storage drivers from floppy (it won't load them from cd)... If you want to use paravirtualized storage drivers for performance reasons you need to attach a virtual floppy from which to load the drivers.
It's not uncommon to use a virtualization environment to run older systems for compatibility purposes either (e.g. to support legacy apps)... You likely also need privileged access to a guest to exploit this, so a legacy os would be a good target for such attacks.
That said, you should remove the floppy drive as soon as the installation has completed.
Lawyers don't care if they lose the case or not, they just care that they get paid which happens either way. As with most legal actions, both sides lose and only the lawyers benefit in any way.
He's actually helping their customers, because their customers have bought a flawed product that isn't fit for purpose. By disclosing the vulnerabilities, these customers are now aware and can demand a fix or switch to an alternative product.
If they sweep these vulnerabilities under the rug that doesn't mean they go away or that noone knows about them, it just means that the customers don't know about them. Others with more nefarious goals may still be aware of the issues and decide to exploit them, an attack that will be completely unexpected because the customers have false faith in the product. Infact, false faith in a security product often leads victims of exploitation to blame something else (often the staff) when a breach happens because they refuse to accept that their expensive security product is flawed.
In your example there is only one house, once you sell it you no longer have the house and that applies equally to whoever originally built it as any subsequent purchaser.