Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Remember the good 'ole days (Score 2) 203

by igxqrrl (#35139052) Attached to: Intel Resumes Shipping of Faulty Sandy Bridge Chip

Which just means that my next upgrade will be AMD. Thanks for making the decision easy, Intel!

Cause AMD would never knowingly ship defective parts to the market? Remember the Phenom triple-core? Why do you care if a chipset has a few bad ports, if that chipset is put in a system where those ports will not be used? How is that any different than the ports simply not being on the chipset? You can bet that OEMs are getting these chipsets at a discount. So Intel sells inventory that they would otherwise have to trash. OEMs get parts for less money than they would otherwise have to pay. Consumers pay less money for their computer, and get a kick-ass product earlier than they would otherwise. Less waste, lower prices, quicker TTM. Given the unfortunate recall, this is the best of all possibilities. Where's the problem, exactly?

Comment: Re:Arms/money race (Score 5, Interesting) 613

by igxqrrl (#34772398) Attached to: First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter
There's another school of thought: If you owe the bank $1,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100M, you own the bank. But replace 'you' with US, '$100M' with $1T, and 'the bank' with China. Not saying it's true in this case, but there's an argument to be made that China can't afford to let the US fail.

Comment: Re:Associated costs (Score 1) 475

by igxqrrl (#33873990) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement
Do you have any support for your assertion?
Do you know what the lawyer's expenses were?
If you are a plaintiff with a legitimate lawsuit, what would you do if no lawyer agreed to take your case, because of a cap on his payments? In that case, would you be better off without caps?
I'm sorry, but your post is written out of ignorance.

Comment: Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

by igxqrrl (#33873844) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement

Short answer is that he doesn't get to keep it. There's whatever he gets to keep as a part of his salary, but there's the cost of the paralegals, office, professional literature, time spent interviewing witnesses, time spent researching the case and coming up with a strategy. There's a lot of work that goes into the practice of practicing law. Plus, if the case was taken on contingency, which it looks like it was, he has to worry about the possibility of losing and ending up being paid nothing. Which can and does happen, there's a reason why attorneys work so hard to keep things out of the courts, the jury can be very unpredictable at times.

You didn't explicitly mention it, but it's important to remember -- not everyone working on the case is paid on contingency. Even if the lawyer loses the case and gets /no/ money, he must still pay the paralegals, the secretaries, the office rent, etc.. In other words there is a very real possibility that by taking the case the lawyer will lose a large sum of money. So there /must/ be a large payout if he wins.

Comment: Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

by igxqrrl (#33873738) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement
If the cost for garbage pickup were $1000 per month, the reasonable conclusion is that *someone* thinks the service is worth $1000 per month. You may disagree, and you may take your stinky smelly garbage to the landfill yourself. Someone else may happily pay the fee, and that may be an entirely reasonable decision for him.

Comment: Re:You're kidding, right? (Score 1) 2058

by igxqrrl (#33819350) Attached to: Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee

I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...

Let's say you choose to build your house in Sweden 100KM from the nearest fire department. Your house catches on fire. Will your tax dollars help put out the fire?

Comment: Re:You're kidding, right? (Score 1) 2058

by igxqrrl (#33819236) Attached to: Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee

Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?

I know plenty of emergency response workers. Some of them care about people, some of them don't. But they all care about the money.

Comment: Re:First Union? (Score 1) 576

by igxqrrl (#33706212) Attached to: Unions Urging Actors Not To Work On Hobbit Movie

Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.

Tell that to the workers of the Upper Big Branch Mine.

How, precisely, did the union protect the safety of the twenty-nine miners killed?

Comment: Re:Go after billionaires then (Score 1) 866

by igxqrrl (#33657778) Attached to: Ballmer, Bezos Fund Effort To Undermine Bill Gates

When did we become a country when it has been decided you have too much, you don't deserve what you earned

When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.

I see your confusion. The tax proposed does not replace the federal income tax, or the state sales tax, or proper tax, or vehicle tax, or gas tax, or any of the myriad other taxes that Washington residents already pay. It is in addition to.

So the most productive Washington State residents are not being asked to pay '"1-2% of total income". They are being asked to pay that much *on top of* the already significant taxes they are already paying.

Perhaps with that context, you'll understand why fighting any additional taxes is a necessary and honorable thing to do. I am a Washington State resident who will not be taxed under this proposal, but I will still vote against it. I moved to Washington State in part because Oregon recently increased taxes on its most productive citizens.

Comment: Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score 1) 866

by igxqrrl (#33657604) Attached to: Ballmer, Bezos Fund Effort To Undermine Bill Gates

So, let's assume we can cut approximately $200 billion from defense contractors. There goes the balance sheet of Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, etc. and some of their employees get laid off, which means they'll be added to the fed. dole. And that probably knackers any thought of countering China and their claims on Taiwan, the entire S. China Sea, and and other assorted mineral and territorial claims they can think of...and they can think of a lot. And it is only $200 against a deficit this year of $1.3 trillion.

There are plenty of places to cut money from the budget, including defense. Please don't use the argument that cutting defense spending puts defense workers on the 'federal dole'. That is fallacious reasoning. The same reasoning justifies hiring workers to dig holes and then fill them in, simply to take workers off the federal dole. The opportunity cost of spending money on defense needs to be weighed against its other uses, such as returning this money to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Working...