because the broken window fallacy still holds
Using the Obama administration's own numbers, a couple years back, for how much they spent for each job "created or saved", and taking the US median income at the time for the cost->jobs destroyed estimator, I got about a 5:1 ratio. Five destroyed for each "created or saved".
Or more: Thats what would happen if they got the money by taxation. The other options are still worse.
The problem is that the VALUE for the government spending comes out of the economy somewhere else:
- If they tax it, they just suck it out directly.
- If they borrow it, it competes for investment money and real job creators don't get to create real jobs and/or have to close or downsize when their funding dries up. (This has an additional multiplier: They have to pay it back, with interest. So it kills still more jobs later.)
- If they print it, it devalues the other currency. The same number of dollars are spent, but less value is spent. Less jobs are funded as a result.
Unfortunately, the anonymous flaimng lefties only see the obvious jobs "created or saved" and not the "invisible men" laid off or not hired as a result.
There is no reason the design of a waste hauling train should wait until a site is identified, thus delaying the removal of the waste from many scattered temporary storage sites. The hauling design and the site identification can proced in parallel.
Indeed: The characteristics of the hauling solution may limit the selection of sites to which the waste could be hauled with acceptable levels of safety. That would argue for the design to PRECEED site selection.
The other replies cover the window-like way of doing things. The other way to do it is to make it so that if you look right, the screen rotates to the right. Usually you have a multiplier, so that a small head rotation translates into a much larger rotation on-screen. Looking backwards might only require turning your head 45 degrees, which allows you to still look to the side and see the screen.
This might sound awkward, but your brain adjusts to it with almost no effort. The main problem I've seen with head-tracking is that stuff on the screen never stands still, which makes it hard to click on small objects. Usually people who use head-trackers need to use a button to pause screen motion, dampen it, etc. Dampening screen motion other than a slight amount to reduce jitter is a bit hard on the eyes I find, since everything you see has a delay attached to it.
Unless the officer in question is also an officer of the foreign division/corporation, I disagree completely.
All that seems relevant is whether the officer in question is in a position to produce the data.
Well, in practice all that really is relevant is whether the US government thinks they might be able to produce the data, and whether they can get their hands on him.
Everything else makes for great moral debate, but if you're standing on US soil and the US government really thinks that you have something that they want, then you're going to be in for a world of hurt if you don't produce the goods or convince them that you don't have them.
The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.
In practice, the law is whatever the government says it is. It is quite possible that MS will prevail on appeal. If it doesn't, then they'll really be between a rock and a hard place, and companies will basically have to look at incompatible national laws and choose which countries they'll base their operations in. MS would not be suffering this problem if they didn't own so much property in both the US and EU, and desire to sell their products in both markets.
The legal question is not so much where the corporation is based, but who owns the data that they have been entrusted with.
The PRACTICAL question isn't where the corporation is based, or who owns the data they have been entrusted with, but rather with how much money Microsoft has tied up in US assets. The courts can confiscate as much of those as they want until MS complies. Foreign governments can do the same.
When you travel through or own property in some jurisdiction, you're effectively within their control to the extent that you're unwilling to part with it.
The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders.
Maybe in principle it does, but it practice the sovereignty of any country is whatever that country can enforce it to be.
You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal.
That very-much depends on the details of the situation. Suppose the US wants the contents of your German safe deposit box.
If the US sent some agents to Germany without cooperation with the German government and they broke into the bank and were caught, then sure they would be arrested and treated as criminals (assuming they lacked diplomatic status), as in your fantasy scenario.
However, they would never do this.
Suppose instead you are in the US on vacation. The US grabs YOU and puts you in their own safe deposit box until you hand over the contents of your box in Germany. It is true that they might not have the means to FORCE you to comply, but they can literally hold you in prison until you die of old age without even charging you with a crime if you do not.
That is the more appropriate analogy here. If MS wants to avoid being subject to US law they should probably avoid having so much of their property in the US, where it is trivially seized.
That assumes that the US division of Deutsche Bank actually has access to the banking records of German citizens. If the chain of command is set up correctly within the company, then the US division should be unable to get access to German records without the agreement of someone sufficiently senior in Germany.
Well, the US government might ultimately fail in getting the data, but they could confiscate all the assets of Deutsche Bank in the US, which would effectively block them from doing business in the US.
Employees of companies are not legally required to be obedient. They can tell their US bosses 'no'. At which point it would be up to the discretion of the US bosses to decide to take action like firing the Irish employees, or to shrug and say 'oh well'. They are not legally obligated to fire them.
Sure, but if the US Courts are fining them every day the data isn't disclosed, and they don't care if the foreign employees refuse to cooperate, then the company is probably going to pressure those employees in any way that they can. They might even close the foreign datacenter entirely if the courts insist on it. Either that or they could close all their US operations.
I'm not a Microsoft fan in any way, but MS is dead right on this one. A US judge does not have jurisdiction over foreign e-mails. He can claim jurisdiction all he wants, butwishing will not make the world bend to his black-robed will.
Well, whether this survives appeal is anybody's guess. However, if the US Supreme Court upholds it then MS will end up turning over the data. This isn't about making the world bend to his "black-robed will" - this is about making Microsoft bend to it. Once the appeals are exhausted they'll be told to produce the data. If they refuse then they'll be fined a million dollars a day, and the fines will be increased if that doesn't seem to be enough. Eventually Microsoft either goes out of business, or it capitulates.
Sure, after it happens the EU can then start fining them millions or billions of dollars if they want to. But, the only way around something like this is for a company to not own property or assets of any kind in both the US and EU. Courts can seize assets, which basically puts you in your jurisdiction no matter what your principles might otherwise dictate.
We can't judge every security improvement solely on whether it solves "the NSA is out to get me."
The NSA and GCHQ are out to break the internet, so I'm afraid that is the benchmark which we have to use. They spy on everyone, and spoof sites like Slashdot to deliver malware. They prefer to hack other people's servers, i.e. your computer, and use them to attack their more specific targets.
So, what solution do you actually advocate then? Right now the NSA/GCHQ can still break the internet, and so can about a million other people. Oh, and everybody gets to pay $100/yr or so for every webserver they run, and virtual hosting is a pain.
DNSSEC is a lot better than what we have now. Moving to it doesn't prevent us from moving to something even better assuming that somebody figures out what it is.
While Iran might find it hard to impersonate
The only solution to that is to have ICANN be under the control of somebody that everybody can trust. Either that, or give up on having a single root. There isn't any reason that you couldn't hard-code into the browsers the keys of the TLDs, other than it making those keys harder to change.
Of course, that isn't going to help you all that much, because if the NSA needs to impersonate a European domain they'll just nicely ask the government hosting it for the keys and they'll cooperate, since while they all complain about the NSA in public the fact is that they love having access to all that data.