First of all, for whatever reason Iceland let it banks default, it was the right thing to do. And Ireland should have done the same.

Second, is it so hard to believe that "free market fundamentalist" thinks banks should be allowed to default? After all, "Let fall what cannot stand" is a normal free market attitude.

Thridly, free market people rarely claim that the market is all-knowing and infallible. They just claim that the market is better than the alternatives. When, I believe, Milton Friedman said "capatalism is a profit and loss system", he also recognizes, like most other "free market fundamentalist", that capitalism is not perfect. If you want to look for utopia, you need to go to the other side of the political spectrum.

You are turning things upside down. People are upset, that he is burning his own personal copy of the Bible/Koran and that is just silly. If he burned another persons copy of the Koran/Bible, then by all means get upset.

If you decide to burn your own money, it would not make me upset. Not the slightest. Money are just I-Owe-Yours from the government. When you burn money, you resolve the government of it's obligation. So go burn all your own money, it will just mean I have to pay a tiny bit less in taxes.

but if new cards include both the token and the chip, then a compromised ATM can simply use the old-style authentication token to perform a fraudulent transaction

If an ATM that usually gets 5% mag-stripe transactiosn, suddenly gets 100% mag-stripe transactions, it would properly ring some bells at the credit card company.

My sig still holds. MS-Windows (and the machines it typically runs on) is like Budweiser. Cheap, but not worth the price. Once you get used to the good stuff, it's hard to go back to the shit peddled as "The King of Computers."
--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Unless you think that Microsoft does not really produce software (just markets their wares as such), your sig is way off.

Any time a company says "Minimum X-X years industry experience etc." they're trying to scare people off.

But do they scare the right people off?

Which type of person applies for a job that he, on paper, is not qualified for? People who do not think rules apply to them? People who go for quantity in applications, rather than quality (and may not even have read the requirements properly)? Or are they left with people who don't mind exaggerating? Which might be the same people who gives overly optimistic estimates.

On the other hand, they might just get people who has a realistic view of how the world works. And in many corporate environments you cannot always go by the rules, as then you will get nothing done. But you cannot expect collage graduates to know that, so you you might just get the ones who would exaggerate in any environment.

OK, I had plenty of weasel words in this post, as I am not confident about the answer myself. But I am definitively not sure it is a wise strategy either.

I am with you on this one. Especially, since the bad behavior had decades to build up. What I do not get, is why the British don't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home. If they use less, they stuff it untaxed in their pocket. If they use more, they take it nondeductible from their pocket. Seems fair to me. After all, if you want your second home to be a small castle, should you not pay for it yourself? I have heard about this case, only from our local reporters (a live in Denmark, Scandinavia) and they talked of different remedies proposed. And all I could here, was more and more bureaucracy. And sure, in the beginning this is going to work. Especially, since politicians are scared shirtless now. But in 30-40 years, when the case is almost forgotten and the bureaucrats have gotten lazy, they are going to have similar scandal again.

Who is being compelled against their will to contribute? While each individual may contribute to their ability, it is on a voluntary basis.

Some will contribute according to their ability, but it would be more apt to say that each contribute according to the minimum of desire and ability.

Few people ever seems to answer my question, which is if you want these companies and their policies destroyed, why is it better to download than to not use their products at all?

Because some people want their cake and eat it too. They want to see the new movie and they want to see the record company policies destroyed. Put in other terms, if you really do not intend to buy a movie, then downloading the movie is not hurting anybody. It is victimless crime.

But frankly, I think people downloading movies illegally has a lot more to do with wanting things for free, than with politics.