Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 340

The Russians can't pull the same crap the Chinese might still be able to do. They aren't the Soviet Union anymore, with an encapsulated economy. They operate as a capitalist nation, and they're not going to be able to "copy/clone" hardware, like they used to. They'll be shutdown economically by the WTO. They're going to have to leverage outdated designs that have copyright close to expiration. What they should do is partner on some level with the Chinese, so they at least can access modern fabrication facilities and techniques.

Comment: Re:Ellsberg got a fair trial (Score 4, Informative) 519

And no one will even speak the true threat the NSA poses to the world.

No one rational thinks that Merkel represents a credible ally of Al Queda. Its all about finding out what Merkel is doing, in order to surreptitiously or politically thwart Germany's political or financial actions which the NSA disapproves of. The NSA will undermine the democratically elected will of any nation, all in the name of US "security". Its not the first time the US tried to do this. Just ask Iran and Chile.

Comment: Re:Instead of a new TV I guess (Score 1) 270

See the problem is that you think only in terms of binary. Ballmer was a failure or success. I don't think did as well as Jobs especially when it came to a larger strategic vision. Jobs had the vision. Ballmer was just managing things.

Incorrect. I'm pointing out that not everyone can perform like Jobs, and its obvious he was an industry anomaly. Most CEOs are more like Ballmer; they are managers, not pioneers, and they don't get the credit when they do a good job, or steer the best possible result in a losing cause. I use the basketball analogy to point out that there can be a lot of basketball superstars, and not match the performance of a Michael Jordan. That doesn't make them failures, and it doesn't make Ballmer a failure for not matching Jobs' performance.

Its unfair to compare Ballmer's tenure to Microsoft's peak in market cap, [...] Where's the contempt for Sam Palmisano

And what did Jobs start with? By any measure, Apple was nowhere near the same position as MS when both men took over their companies.

Who cares? We've already established that Jobs is a uniquely successful CEO. Jobs is the anomaly, not the standard expectation of a successful CEO.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 490

No its not, especially if you're old enough to have seen the history firsthand.

There certainly was sort of an odd chauvinism among the mainframe/minicomputer group against personal computing. Luckily, the newbs to the industry didn't even bother listening to the "professionals".

Ironically, I'd have to agree with the Beeb on this one, even if it may be a propaganda newscast. They're absolutely right; if you don't know enough about 3D materials & basic firearms, you could end up blinding yourself, or damaging you hand. I could definitely see a teenager trying this, using their parents/brother's/friend's 3D printer.

But we all know the march of technology is inexorable.

Comment: Re:Instead of a new TV I guess (Score 1) 270

Don't you also think its unfair to conclude Ballmer was a failure based on what Jobs was able to do? Its like saying Patrick Ewing was a failure because Michael Jordan was always in the way. (Except when MJ wasn't, and Ewing still failed, to the Rockets and the Pacers. Ewing was still a player to be reckoned with for most of his career, even if I think of Hakeem Owajuan as moreso, as well as having a higher opinion of Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, and Shaq.)

Its unfair to compare Ballmer's tenure to Microsoft's peak in market cap, because that peak occurred before 2000, crashed real hard during the the 2000 bubble. Based on when Ballmer took over, and when he left, it only lost a fraction of its market cap at the time. Basically, Ballmer guided Microsoft into mediocrity, not really growing its value. But that's not the mark of a failure, considering that Sun Microsystems, Palm, etc. don't even exist today. IBM increased in market cap over the past 10 years, but it was a huge player in tech over a decade ago, and now is kind of a market afterthought. Where's the contempt for Sam Palmisano?

Lets face it, not every company can have a Steve Jobs for CEO. Does that make every tech company that didn't quadruple its market share a failure?

Comment: Re:Raise the Price (Score 1) 462

Believe me, I see the branding and false dichotomies. And I wouldn't even be a supporter of the liberalism that causes many liberals to be disenchanted with Obama. I'm just annoyed at the hero worship and demonizing that's used to frame Obama. Its neither. And I'm sick of the operation of the current Republican party which makes it near impossible for me to consider voting for any of their politicians. But that leaves me with these defective Democrats.

Comment: Re:Raise the Price (Score 1) 462

by slashdot_commentator (#47083499) Attached to: Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please Don't Buy Our Electric Car

He sure acts like a Republican. Pass a Republican health insurance bill (ACA). Protects national spying programs and secret security police at the expense of individual rights. A few other details that escape my memory... Obama runs the country the way a Nixon or a (either) George Bush would.

Comment: Re:here's why it is a reasonable idea (Score 1) 404

by slashdot_commentator (#46904373) Attached to: Rand Paul Suggests Backing Bitcoin With Stocks

Its more than just a great idea in principle. Its a way "money" becomes an accepted form of currency exchange.

From the 18th century, paper money issued by a government was "backed" a specific amount of gold. Once you could exchange the piece of paper for goods, as if it were gold, that was the establishment of paper money. Coins didn't require quite a conceptual hurdle, because minted coins had a specific amount of gold or other precious metal smelted into the coin. That is what's called specie currency.

In the 19th & 20th century, gov'ts would "back" their paper currency with some other form of valued commodity, if backing it with gold became to prohibitively costly. Its how the Nazi's broke the inflationary cycle caused by them printing out papermarks (german dollars). The bank printing rentenmarks backed the paper with the physical assets owned by the bank.

The dumbass cryptocurrency hipsters are so in love with their dream of bitcoin working as a governmentless currency, they fail to realize is that bitcoin is not money. Its not used as an exchange medium for goods (to a significant amount). bitcoin has no intrinsic value, like fiat currency.

What Rand Paul suggests would be what bankers have done for centuries in order to make a "new" currency acceptable. Granted, you're stuck with a form of centralized authority (but it doesn't have to be governmental) "backing" the currency with something of tangible value, but cryptocurrency fans would still be able to have decentralized transactions of bitcoin, without require active participation of a government.

Comment: Re:When participation is mandatory? I believe. (Score 1) 723

by slashdot_commentator (#46723533) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

The cost has doubled and tripled because gov't has been regulating all aspects of the medical industry before the PPACA, and its aided pharmaceutical companies and hospitals (and doctors) to gouge the crap out of customers. In every other developed country, they all get medical care, while sufficiently containing costs. The US has the most inefficient health care system in the world. That means we pay 2.5x more money for the same treatment as other countries. But its the greatest system in the world, if you're rich.

Comment: Re:7.1 million is pathetically low, so ya I believ (Score 1) 723

by slashdot_commentator (#46723129) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but no way is the ACA a "long term" solution to the health insurance problem in the US. Politicians will be back to the drawing board at some point before 2030.

The other problem is that the ACA will only marginally control health care costs (according to the CBO). Overall, health care costs are going up, regardless. What the ACA really addresses is the health insurance collapse the country would have been headed towards if it didn't change the status quo in 2009.

But your perspective is much more accurate, compared to a Republican partisan. I hope there isn't huge bad news on this front before November, this year.

"I'm not a god, I was misquoted." -- Lister, Red Dwarf