Pangloss

Nice post, Padren. (I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a missing quote tag from one of your quotes of Mr. Skeptic.)

Because that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You don't know that disaster wasn't prevented. Granted I can't prove that it was, but action was taken and there was no disaster, so I don't have to, and I'm not advocating the rejection of an entire economic approach that's been in use for most of a century without proof that it's the cause of the problem.

This sound like a RAM timing issue to me. I'd look into whether the BIOS settings need to be changed.

Isn't that part of the purpose of protecting copyright, to stop reverse engineering? That doesn't sound like a new thing to me. But what I meant was that I don't know if there's an ethical problem with Apple putting its device controls on the headphone cable. It MIGHT be an attempt to gain a monopoly over the headphone market (I feel a little saying that, but okay), but it also has a legitimate utility benefit to the consumer. And it's one that could be argued to be original enough to be considered copyrightable, since all such current systems control only volume level (and mute). But I'm keeping an open mind about it, being no fan of DMCA (over the fair use issue).

Well I don't think there's any question that the present situation needs to be changed or at least repaired. Robert Reich made that point this morning on ABC and George Will was nodding his head vigorously -- those two never agree on anything, but they agreed that AIG is currently beholden to neither market forces OR the American people. The President has apparently said privately that he will not sign a retroactive law because it would make it harder to get these companies back on their feet. Fine. He's being a bit hypocritical in that regard if he thinks an OVERALL executive compensation rule will make Wall Street any happier, but he's at least recognizing that retroactive laws are unfair. But I think it's becoming more clear by the day that we need to fix this and GET OUT. It was the right thing to do getting in, but we need to count our lessons and learn from them and not get stuck in an economic Iraq.

There's a reason why we don't do that that has nothing to do with cheap labor. It would produce growth that would be too rapid to integrate the new population into housing, labor, and tax revenue. Europe knows all about this problem which is why most (all?) European nations tightly control the number of people allowed to immigrate each year. I meant the payer, not the recipient. They go and work other houses and make more money -- they're not living off $50/month. But my point is that they don't have the same expenses as legal citizens. They do pay some taxes, but not all of them, if they're being paid "off the books", in cash, and if they're paying their room and board the same way, then they're not participating in the economy and their expenses are artificially low. And people take advantage of them on that basis, knowing they can't complain, and saving even more money in the process. This is intuitively obvious and frequently demonstrated in reporting and common experience.

I wonder if it's just a matter of throwing the ball just a little long, hoping that the defense will move back a bit on the next play. In other words, asking for a little bit more than what you really want.

Apparently the administration is going to seek executive compensation limits for all financial services companies in the US. Even ones that aren't receiving bailout money. No, really. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?ref=business Some of the stuff they're talking about in there makes sense, such as commodities trading exchanges for derivatives and so forth. But setting artificial limits on pay doesn't sound like a good idea to me. We want these companies to be competitive with each other, that's part of the point. And if we're going to have executive compensation limits here, why not all American companies? Isn't the reasoning exactly the same, just with a smaller impact on the economy? I think it makes more sense to focus on regulation and controls on capabilities rather than controls on compensation. Now if a company takes BAILOUT money, that's a whole other matter -- regulation or taxation, I'm fine with stopping that. But controlling compensation at companies that aren't even having problems -- that seems antithetical to the American spirit of innovation and competition.

Neglect implies an obligation that I don't acknowledge. I'll work towards better opportunities by improving education, safety, and healthcare, but I won't be held responsible for other people's foolish decisions, like your mention of credit card interest. Those do NOT factor in, at least how I see it.

Apparently Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods have banded together to suggest an alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act, presently heading towards signage under the Democratically-controlled Congress and Obama Administration. One of the biggest complaints about the EFCA is that it isn't "free choice" -- it's actually carte blanche for the unions to intimidate and coerce uncooperative employees into signing on (the somewhat infamous "card check" process). This alternative basically takes the "free choice" concept and shoves it right back in the faces of unions, saying "you want free choice? fine, let's make it REALLY free". Instead of Card Check, employees will essentially be able to call for a secret ballot any time they want. No doubt the unions will oppose this, but they're going to look a little silly doing so given that this goes right to the heart of their argument. I think it's pretty clever. What do you all think? Some background on the EFCA can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Cool thanks.

I guess so. In reading a bit more about it it sounds like they have a chip in the headphones that gives them the ability to control the unit. I guess the idea is to use DMCA to stop 3rd parties from manufacturing their own chips instead of licensing them from Apple. I'm not sure I really see an ethical problem here.

Please remember also that infractions are not visible to the membership at large. You also cannot see our behind-the-scenes discussions, and many times when you see a moderator posting something it's only after we talked it over and agreed on a course of action. You ARE getting a lot of "moderation" in this thread, it's just not always visible to you.

Remember, it's just a temporary measure. The long-term plan is to remove the toxic assets and then re-attract investors, who should be happy to return.

Paying $50/month for house cleaning is not a constitutional right. If the fact that it's only $50/month is due to the recipients being illegal and citizens can't get their costs that low even if they want to, then something is wrong with the system, and we need to change that situation, not "relax the immigration laws". Tighten UP the immigration laws, prevent people from coming in illegally, and then, if you like, increase the number of LEGAL immigrants. Make them pay ALL the taxes and make THEIR service providers (housing, food, healthcare) meet the same standards as they have to meet for citizens. Then you'll see those costs go up and that will end $50/month house cleaning, and everyone's happy. I can afford to pay $100, or I can clean the damn house myself.

I understand and agree with the points people are raising about the value of allowing companies to go under, or file Chapter 11, etc. I just don't see that as an absolute necessity -- I see it more as a balancing variable -- something we have to weigh against other factors, such as the impact on the economy overall. As such, I think it's appropriate to decide in some cases (like with these banks with their massive leverage) to intervene. This is not an undermining of our system -- it's a logical extension of what we always do in a mixed economy. In some cases we may screw that up, but we'll learn from the process and move forward. I never said such people didn't exist even at the height of our success. But throwing around straw men about "the big divide" isn't going to change the fact that we were doing very well. Even people living "under the poverty line" were, according to the US Census, living in houses (with mortgages, of course), had a couple of cars, jobs, playstations, DVRs & cable, etc etc etc. Your "big divide" was over whether or not they were keeping up with the Joneses, not whether they had enough food in the refrigerator. That may be changing now, of course.

I can understand the frustration with scrappy's posts, but I think to some degree what's frustrating you guys is that he won't change his MIND. When he does make a reasonable post that is consistent with the spirit of "we can agree to disagree", you charge in en masse and demand that he change his opinion on this issue, which then gets his hackles up and leads to what some of you have decided just HAS to be trolling. Well, we (yes we) don't see it that way, and I'm also concerned with the repeating pattern of minor abuse towards minority opinion holders on this forum. I don't think you guys realize how lucky you are to have those opinions represented here. What good is having a hometown baseball team if no visiting teams ever show up to play? So relax. Have fun with it. Be respectful. Or we'll get all umpire-y on you.

Just to update this, the plan was officially dropped on Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/vets.insurance/?iref=mpstoryview

WPA2 is still good against wardrivers, right? Just checking.

I haven't fully scoped this one out yet, but the new Shuffle actually places some of the system controls on the earphone wire, so I'm wondering if third party devices connected through that port might have the ability to bypass copyright protection and/or access the OS. But even if that's true I'm not clear on why they would resort to DMCA protection.

Oh definitely -- I'm sure there are many good people at AIG, and from what I understand it's just one division that's caused all this trouble (the same division that got these bonuses, I hear). They've brought the whole company down through their foolishness and that's a tragedy for sure. I also think it's probably a good thing that the state attorney general is holding the names of the bonus recipients confidential for the moment. It's good that they were turned over, but a public lynching would be not only a disappointment but also a distraction.

Rofl. Actually I want to marry the point-in-time instance of Claudia Cardinale in 1963's The Leopard. I need a time-traveling marriage license, please! Just insert me in place of Alain Delon.

No offense intended, but it appears that I was correct in raising the specter of the less savory side of the animal rights movement as the motivation for resurrecting this thread. Good work on Mokele's part in bringing that to the fore. Visceral, I respect your opinion on it, but your reporting bias pretty much punts this thread out of the "hmm, is there something to learn here?" category and well into the "agree to disagree" pile, at least from where I sit. Not that I'm complaining -- it doesn't hurt to resurrect a subject now and then just to see if anything's changed.

Well in fairness they did replace the CEO in September. Unfortunately it was (more or less) a somewhat politicized appointment, and the guy seems to have very little control over the company. He's the one who was testifying before Congress this week. Legally the only difference I can see is that we renegotiated those contracts before the fact. In the case of AIG we seem to be going after the bonuses after the fact. Not only that, but we seem to have given them permission to do what they did, and only changed our minds after public outrage was expressed. Chris Dodd may be DONE in Washington, btw. He's up in 2010 and may not be re-electable now, considering the way this is feeding off his earlier scandals regarding Countrywide and Fannie/Freddie. A long fall for a major player in the 2008 Presidential race. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTo update this, the bill to tax the AIG bonuses appears to be stalled in the Senate now. The irony here is that the bill may actually be the only way to stop this sort of thing from happening again. These companies didn't get to apply these bonuses because of previous contracts, folks, they got to apply them because lawmakers explicitly allowed the bailouts to take place without forcing the companies to change their compensation agreements, which they COULD have legally done, just as they did with the UAW and just as they plan to do with mortgage contracts. So a law saying that such bonuses will be taxed at 90% may ultimately be the only way to prevent another massive campaign contribution recipient like Chris Dodd from inserting language in a bailout bill that would allow this to happen all over again. So while I agree with Ron Paul who said yesterday that Congress is just reacting as it always does, I think this time they may be producing, out of ignorance, the best answer to the problem. Only now it's stalled in the Senate and might not get passed because people perceive it as a bill whose only purpose is to exact retribution on AIG! (I tell you what, I can't remember a time when politics was just so damned... interesting!)

I apologize if my introduction of the "lamp post" into the discussion caused additional stress. I obviously could care less about actually marrying one and don't have a problem with the law being limited to actual persons. Relax, everyone, it's just a discussion.