I think people tend to forget that the banks were bailed out because if they weren't then the world's financial system would have shriveled up and died -- remember the credit markets had actually ceased to function and as a result no one could borrow money.
I haven't seen any credible arguments against bailing out the bank which would have ensured that the financial system didn't completely collapse. Some argue that we should have let the crisis take its own course, let the banks fail and deal with the consequences. But this would have guaranteed a second great depression and the vast majority of the world would have been negatively affected in a very bad way.
Now without congress actually doing anything against the banks there aren't too many options left, but hopefully the banks being sued can keep this issue in the spotlight longer to encourage public rage, so that Congress is actually forced to do something of significance.
They have to check the leaks to make sure that they aren't putting any ones life in danger (when they haven't done this in the past their enemies have used it against them in the ongoing PR battle). That takes time.
It also means that they do cherry pick because they have to prioritize what leaks they will check and release first.
They've got 250,000 cables. A small team is going to take a long time to check 250,000 cables.
No doubt they do keyword searches of the cables to find the juicy ones and release those first, but, what you gonna do... release the boring, mundane stuff first? No one would pay attention to you.
It's quite odd. Certainly Assange is quite technically savvy -- he's a reformed (genuine) hacker -- after all. So I just can't imagine him re-using passwords. Similarly, I would have thought that he'd be enough of a control freak to, you know, check this stuff out himself.
$500m would be more than sufficient to do all of those things you've outlined. If you can put up 25% (random percent) of the money then you'd be able to get investors to put in the rest. Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves.
But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with.
Yes, but you see, in order for him to actually get the gig as an Apple intern he'll have to sign his soul away and the consequences of leaking any information after he's signed those papers will be draconian.
For once I'd like to see a little more honesty... you know: "we did it for the money" rather than "we did it for the users". Liars.
--------------------
2. Why is CNET Download.com making this change?
The same reason you have your applications on Download.com – for the users. The CNET Download.com Installer ensures a safe and improved download experience by making it easier for Download.com users to complete downloads and launch the software’s installer.
There is too much negativity on the Internet, but there's also too much of just about everything else. The ease of publishing on the Internet means that people don't think too critically about their work prior to publishing it.
For example, if these guys were publishing this benchmark as part of a study or argument in a quarterly magazine -- and this was there only opportunity to publish it for the next year or so -- then they would have been far more critical of their own work prior to publishing it. Instead they've quickly thrown together something and pushed it onto the Internet without too much further thought.
Just because someone posts a benchmark that is obviously flawed, doesn't mean that someone else should be obligated to do their own benchmark as a counter.
These guys didn't ask for node.js to be used in any benchmark.
The onus is on the person who chooses to do a benchmark, and publish the results, to get it right. If they don't get it right, then they are in the wrong and deserve the criticism that they get as a result.
Overall value of one person to a company is hard to measure. Yes, they might write great code, but if their abrasive and asshole personality bring down the productivity of the other five developers on the team, is it worth it?
Perhaps, but Apple make a ton more money per handset than Google does, so in my mind they are ahead. They also continue to lead design-wise. Manufacturers are still copying Apple products in this space.
But it's not clear how Google can break the cycle by themselves. If Google were to say no to patents, without there first being major reforms to the patent system, then they would be slowly squeezed by their competitors patents until they ran out of juice.
It's fascinating to see the behemoths (Apple, Microsoft, Google) positioning themselves for the fight ahead. The importance of this fight cannot be understated.
Microsoft won the last fight like this and they have dominated our desktops for 15 years (OK, maybe not all HN devotees) and pocketed gazillions.
Apple are ahead right now (manufacturing handsets, selling software, etc), Google are second and Microsoft are lagging behind in third, but this Motorola deal means that Google might be able to pull ahead of Apple for a period and alienated phone manufacturers who are using Android might flock to Microsoft, inflating their sails a little.
Google has got to play the game until the rules of the game change. They need patents for protection. Yes, the patents are overpriced, but does Google have a choice?
It's obvious that he is expressing an opinion. Those who disagree with him can express an opposing opinion. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean that they need to back it up in any scientific way, especially in a community based around discussing ideas and sharing opinions.
The only thing this indicates is that Mark is keeping tabs on the latest hot news. It means that when a reporter asks him the question "Do you think G+ is a competitor to Facebook?" then he can give answer. The answer could be a simple no, but unless he's actually used G+ how could he honestly answer that question?
Credit markets and the shadow banking system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Cre...
I haven't seen any credible arguments against bailing out the bank which would have ensured that the financial system didn't completely collapse. Some argue that we should have let the crisis take its own course, let the banks fail and deal with the consequences. But this would have guaranteed a second great depression and the vast majority of the world would have been negatively affected in a very bad way.
Now without congress actually doing anything against the banks there aren't too many options left, but hopefully the banks being sued can keep this issue in the spotlight longer to encourage public rage, so that Congress is actually forced to do something of significance.