Posts by BlueGreen

Firefox, is that you? Version 29 looks rather like a certain shiny rival

Re: Navigation buttons locked to address bar @Martin-73

Firefox ESR looks is basically FX 24. And it's stays that way... Try it.

(doesn't work for PaulR79 as he doesn't want to reinstall it, but maybe good for you).

@tin 2

Was having a teacher unload on me about the total arse-pain that OFSTED is, and observed that from what it sounded like, they were a bureaucracy that were needing to find more ways to justify themselves by extending their reach, making loud noises, changing things etc. simply to show to themselves they were important.

Sounds an awful lot like the moz interface team: "I'm here! I'm still here, look, look!, notice me!". I actually emailed their UI guy about the last major change that affected me and about a squillion others - he never replied. Perhaps if others did instead of compaining here..? Probably not though, easier to gripe.

So I sidestepped. I installed and have stuck with Firefox ESR and I'm frankly very happy. If everyone did that they might notice.

ESR download here

Silk Road dealer 'SuperTrips' faces 40 years for DVD drug imports

Re: RegMidnight 40 years in prison

> Is it? I take ...

There is no such thing as a safe drug. However, if prescribed and taken correctly one can assume that the pros outweigh the cons on average.

However again, we're not talking about prescribed legal drugs but recreational use, or at least that's how I read the original post.

(I remember seeing a film of a US airman, taken in the sixties when the government was experimenting with (presumably pharma grade) speed to keep them up for long missions. He was trying idly to catch nonexistent butterflies in the air. 'safe' is not a function of how it's produced but how it's taken, in what quantity etc.)

Re: RegMidnight 40 years in prison

> I had an amphetamine user in my team in one job [and how great he was]

I'm also aware of Erdos, however... my landlord of a while back used speed a lot in the 70's and I can tell you it fucked him up.

And I lived with a druggie, who liked his speed (and his mary-jane and his booze and his E's and his glue - he liked his glue, I think it was a lot of effect very cheaply - and whatever else he could reach) and overdid it one evening, leaving me to spend the night in hospital with him. Nasty bit of work he was. No use to anyone. Just a couple of counterpoints.

> Whilst the family orientated members of the team did nothing the second they left the building.

err, good? Because they shouldn't?

> The pharmaceutical amphetamines are obviously safe

This is so stupid I can't believe it.

In fact your post is so dumb I can only feel it's a bit of an agent provocateur invite for the anti-drug brigade.

Re: RegMidnight 40 years in prison @Plump & Bleaty

Oh god, lambchop, you just don't change. You put up specious arguments and have them blown down again and agian and aggan and agasdfasffff.... And then you come back for another hoofing, spouting more made-up 'facts' and forever distorting what people say.

Nothing changes in your head, no new connections formed, no new neurons fire, the eternality of when the entire clockwork of the universe has run down to utter stillness and silence and you're frozen forever at that point.

UK bank heist-by-KVM gang sent down for 24 years after nicking £1.2m

Re: 24 Years - Nah!

> I almost put money on the table this comment would be posted.

Descended to gonzo now?

(sorry, had to. Have a ------------------------------------------>)

Spy back doors? That would be suicide, says Huawei

"the NSA intended to plant its own backdoors in Huawei firmware"

Oooh, they are cunts, they really are.

IBM rides nightmarish hardware landscape on OpenPOWER Consortium raft

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

> If you took the Telsas out of the intel systems where would they be on that list? Would they be on that list at all?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know. But if they do the job, what would you do?

> Well to be fair it can't be any worse then IBM have managed to do with POWER on their own

Yep :( And IMO they've left it too late. A decade+ ago when they were in apple they could have used that foothold to seriously hurt intel but they took the short term view. Oh well.

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

> Oh I can read, can you?

Well one of us can't. From your previous post

> or just use a power chip and save half the power of the intel chip and all the power of the gpu.

Well, it turns out the most energy efficient (by linpacks, not cores, normal people care about results, or do you think MOAR C0R3S = BETTAR?) is in fact a xeon with (drumroll) GPUs added in, according to you.

By 'comparable' I was using flops/power. Seems an intel with gpus wins on that fron. Like I said originally.

Just to be clear, I think competition is better, I just don't see how ibm can compete just on being (arguably) better tech.

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @BlueGreen

> I eagerly await your suggestions.

It depends on what you're familiar with, what software you're running, what your budget is, if the current system is satisfactory (other than performance) etc. If you've got a power and you need to upgrade, the 'best' system is most likely another power.

And if you're running intel then the best upgrade is likely to be another intel. Note: 'best' is a matter of cash and systems, not the prettiest chip.

Unless IBM can show a clear reason to move from x64 to power, how are they going to displace an already very established market with huge lock-in?

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

And I've used your own reference to show that number 6, piz daint, is the most efficient. It's a xeon in case you can't read.

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

Ok, you know less than me. From your own list.

rank..chip.....name........linpack..power(KW)..lin/power

1.....xeon.....Tianhe-2....33863....17808......1.90

2.....opteron..Titan.......17590....8209.......2.14

3.....power....Sequoia.....17173....7890.......2.18

4.....sparc....K computer..10510....12660......0.83

5.....power....Mira........8587.....3945.......2.18

6.....xeon.....Piz Daint...6271.....2325.......2.70

7.....xeon.....Stampede....5168.....4510.......1.15

8.....power....JUQUEEN.....5009.....2301.......2.18

Arguing with amateurs is just boring.

And to PowerMan@thinksis, marketing men posting empty marketing tripe is embarrassing.

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

> Better processors.

I've argued 'better' is not very meaningful. Please define your 'better'.

> or just use a power chip and save half the power of the intel chip and all the power of the gpu.

Reeealy? Where are the refs showing that POWER is half the power of an equivalent intel and 'all the power of the gpu' (and for what price??). You either know a lot more than me about POWER or a lot less, and I'd like to find out which.

Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

> Oh, maybe an established 64-bit system (compared to ARM)

You misunderstand. ARM has low power. If you want high power you've got x64 which is mature, cheap and fast.

> with a better underlying architecture (compared to x86)

define 'better'. Even devs almost never see the details of the arch so that way it's irrelevant. App users will never, ever see this so they don't care. So maybe technically better but so what? I doubt ancient architectural cruft in intel chips now adds anything noticeable to the price. (NB the alpha looked in the mirror and was the fairest by far).

> and willingness to license at affordable costs?

Who cares? If you want a high power chip use intel. And slot in a gpu.

> but there is a lot of new stuff that has no such constraint.

It's a business question: If it's new and low power use arm. If it's new and high power, use intel/amd. Again, what does power bring to the party?

arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

What does ibm bring to the table in this that would interest anyone over x86/x64? I can't see anything.This reeks of fear and desperation. If they'd done this years ago, but of course the gravy train was too addictive to derail.

Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise

Re: anti semitism question @All

Thanks to everyone for the comprehensive and thoughtful answers.

Re: Boring Green anti semitism question @Matt Bryant

Thanks Matt, very interesting. I'll follow up your link in detail this eve. But I still don't understand the main paradox (to me) of this: if christians blame jews for nailing up their 133T prophet, why is the fact that jesus was a jew himself not count for anything? It doesn't make sense[*]

[*] Not that humans in general do

Re: anti semitism question

@Boris the Cockroach

AFAIU, the christian (catholic?) church banned jews from doing virtually bugger all else except doing what was considered dirty: loaning money. So jews had to do it to survive.

But the church deliberately did this *because* jews were a disliked minority at the time, so the anti semitism seems to precede this.

(edit: but thanks for the reply)

anti semitism question

I have never understood why historically[*] jews got such a hard time. I know people need something to hate but why so consistently jews? What did they do so long ago that earned them 2 millenia (or more) of utter bile? I'd really like to know.

[*] I do mean historically, so ignoring any current events.

MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling

Re: Boring Green Andrew Ferni Anonymous Cluetard Nonesuch I wouldn't..... @Plump & Bleaty

> drown out dissenting views with personal attacks and waffle

But why then do you repeatedly not address what I say? you just back out when it gets inconvenient. You did it twice before, you've made the hat-trick now. Kind of getting a habit with you.

> But that would be simply dishonest, something you obviously do not have a problem with

But plumpness, that is hardly something you can accuse of others of, is it. Shall I make a list? No? That's because you'd have to back out yet again.

> you cannot defend the indefensible

Tautologically not, so why do you say such a silly thing?

> If you were to post an original and good argument in any post then I would ...

... ignore it if it's inconvenient then make personal attacks. Q.V. much of this thread.

> the voting system is not a tool for recognition of the intrinsic value of a post's argument

Yes it is you silly sheep

> you just can't think independently

I envy your individuality, plumpness. You're special.

Re: Boring Green Andrew Ferni Anonymous Cluetard Nonesuch I wouldn't..... @Plump & Bleaty

Hiya plumpness, it is odd that you see this as personal. The lack of response to my pointing out of your errors suggests I'm in the right area, even more so now that you've backed down. Backed down twice in fact.

And twice I have acknowledged your honesty in your response, don't you think that's worthy of an upvote? Maybe it's because you didn't read my response properly. Try again, and address my points, thanx.

I've upvoted your post BTW. I upvote you, you upvote me, everyone wins, right plumpness? That's the power of socialism, lambchop.

Re: Boring Green Andrew Ferni Anonymous Cluetard Nonesuch I wouldn't..... @Plump & Bleaty

(Dear Plump & Blleaty, kindly refrain from stripping the title of your monicker as this makes the thread hard to follow. I had to add it back again, sorry)

> LOL, still trying with the personal attacks

Defintely not a personal attack, plumpness! Just pointing out your repeated error.

> right-think sources

I thought you were right wing so I fail to see how you present this as criticism.

> Well, I suppose you could say I have done nothing of 'value' seeing as value is itself intrinsic dependent on the beholder's own values.

So even in your own eyes you haven't done anything worthy. Honest, I guess.

> I may have done plenty that most responsible, educated, intelligent and law-abiding citizens

Implying that you also may not have done? Peculiarly honest of you, lambchop

> but then I can see why that would equate to zero for you.

I honestly don't think that of you. Not at all.

> Why do the lefties always think everyone is just dying to shriek 'me, me, me', just because their icons are so egotistical?

I was asking about *you* but you seemed to have missed that (again, D- for plump, must try harder), like pretty well every point people make to you that you don't like. I kind of admire that in ewe.

> Seriously, you need to realise there is more than just a difference in political views here

I don't think you're cut out to understand that someone can hold a different political view to you.

> that are better mannered and don't seek to promote self at every opportunity

This, coming from mr. reticent, plumpo hisself! Wooooh hoooo!

Re: Boring Green Andrew Ferni Anonymous Cluetard Nonesuch I wouldn't..... @Plump & Bleaty

> You seriously think I'm going to share any personal history

In short, you've done nothing of value.

> and attempting to divert into a personal attack

You're so good at bitching at the ineptitude of others I thought I allow you the chance to show how much better you were. That does not constitute a personal attack. Describing you as tedious would, but I'm not going to do that.

> I notice you are desperate to avoid any discussion of AI, could that be because...

... because you raised the issue of Amnesty International, not me? Correct. My post did not refer to them except by copying from yours.

More wool from plumpy.

Re: Andrew Ferni Anonymous Cluetard Nonesuch I wouldn't want to set one foot.....

> that thinks Amnesty International are some sort of untaintable font of moral wisdom?

An udder Plump and Bleaty tactic; ascribe to those who disagree some absurdly extreme position then attack them for it.

So, in contrast to Amnesty, as your counsel such perfection in others, I wonder what good you've done in this world. Let us know. (NB, token production of meat and wool don't count). Seriously, show us the goods. Something verifiable as I know you can be a bit 'careless' with facts.

Show us.

Re: Nonesuch I wouldn't want to set one foot on American soil either... @Matt Bryant

> have taken upon themselves the right to charge anyone in any country with war crimes, even in cases where neither party involved has nothing at all to do with Europe

Mismanagement of a novel currency is not the same as trying to enforce justice regarding events of genocide, torture, rape as a weapon of war, ditto mutilation, the use of child soldiers, that kind of thing.

> with professional handwringers like Amnesty International.

Are you for or against genocide, torture, rape, child soldiers, mutilations etc? Please be clear in your answer, thanks.

Fusion-io: Ah, Microsoft. I see there's in-memory in SQL Server 2014... **GERONIMO!**

Re: 10 years+ later

Quality trollings!!!!

Not.

Must try a bit less hard.

Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, Already obsolete

Re: Does ANYBODY still believe this tripe?

A small pair of anecdotes about vista.

Tried it on a mate's machine. Shut down, and it took a few minutes of it just spinning before I decided it must have crashed and physically pulled the plug. Found out later it took about six minutes to shut itself down, you just had to leave it, and leave it, and leave it...

While there I also downloaded a smallish (few dozen meg) file. I had the option to get the compressed or uncompressed file. Both had the same contents. Obviously the zipped one is better, less bandwidth, be a nice net citizen etc. so I grabbed that one and it took just a few seconds. Then I tried to unzip it. Baaaad. The progress meter hovered around 40K *PER SECOND* for the unzipping. It would literally have been many times faster to download the unzipped file than get the zipped and unzip it locally. What a crock.

Russian deputy PM: 'We are coming to the Moon FOREVER'

Re: About Time @TitterYeNot

> Vill zer be anything else

ur rusky smells a bit german, TBH

On a more serious note, russia will bankrupt itself trying. Sounds more like putin's in the final stages of whipping up the dumb masses for another reason, perhaps rather more about this planet, maybe for another like trip across someone elses border or to consolidate their existing work in ukraine.

OpenSSL Heartbleed: Bloody nose for open-source bleeding hearts

@Gene Cash

> has anyone ever seen a code review actually catch a problem?

yes

Murdoch says Microsoft needs 'big clean out'

Re: Professional immigrant

> Murdoch is just a chancer

The 'h' is silent.

Re: "[MS] was early to understand and realise the potential of XML" @Getriebe

MS did not follow the spec on whitespace normalisation. Whitespace normalisation was given from v 1.0 of the spec. That's a fact. I don't believe it was an accident it was borked either. I recall there were other problems but don't remember the details.

> MSFT did have their own version of XML because in the early days the standard was not useful

erm, in what way 'not useful' (except for being a bit opaque perhaps)

> Their 'extensions'

Curious, what extensions are these?

> We constantly tried to use other browsers

Ah, my point has zilch to do with browsers, just using MSXML for parsing. Browser irrelevant.

> XML spec trying to get it extended so it would carry more information

Eh, now I am interested. Except for binary data, where did xml fail originally? Note: am not trying to defend xml, just intrigued.

"[MS] was early to understand and realise the potential of XML"

That pretty much overrates a simple markup language. And incidentally MS's early implementations of XML (MSXML) were non-conforming (e.g. did not normalise whitespace in attributes & more). That was no accident.

I remember a most entertaining conversation (prob still on the web somewhere) between some MS rep and one of the creators of the XML spec (might have been Tim Bray himself), where the rep just insistently bleated 'our implementation is conforming' only to be slapped down by the spec writer - again and again. Such fun!

To put it more simply for the author of this article, MS tried to break XML because it wasn't theirs, like they try to break everything.

And Murdoch, if you're reading this, I hope the coppas sniff their way up the chain of corruption right to the top. There's a noose waitin' for you, dog.

Oracle's NoSQL nightmare MongoDB goes to version 2.6

Re: Scoffing @bigtimehustler

Postgres is free, but I guess that's not your point. Genuine experts are going to proportionately expensive in either technology I'd have thought, however you can probably do with *less* of them in an RDBMS because the intelligence (in the form of the optimiser) is built into the software so there's likely less effort to write complex queries.

> ...cludge together some make do solution...

Empty emotive words.

Re: Scoffing

> Postgres has recently merged support for binary JSON

I doubted that you could index on a json sub-part, but to my surprise, you can <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17807030/how-to-create-index-on-json-field-in-postgres-9-3>.

Assuming you wanted to do that, I mean. I have to say I still don't understand what mongo is supposed to be giving us that a typical sql DB can't. The one claimed difference, 'unstructured information' is entirely blobbable, and apparently now indexable by subcomponents (in PG anyway), so what's left? Anyone?

> Can we have less coverage of industry PR and more DBA meat, please?

Yup, in spades.

'Yahoo! Breaks! Every! Mailing! List! In! The! World!' says email guru

usenet

hey, don't knock it! I found it prefereable in almost every way to what we've got now. Simple, quick, low bandwidth, not proprietary, no need to sign in to anything, update then browse offline... YMMV but I thought it great. Spam killed it.

We need to handle spam somehow as it, and its variants in the form of ads etc., will kill a lot more of the net eventually, I fear.

Re: @ xperroni (was: What legit email admin ...)

> it has to do with the folks you are rubbing virtual shoulders with

Instead of posting snobby I'm-a-techno-god comments with no useful content, perhaps do something constructive instead.

As you're so evidently knowledgeable, share it. Light a candle and push back the darkness like Trevor Pott; write an article or two for the reg, for us plebs. Earn your stripes instead of being a slightly upmarket troll.

You going to put up or shut up then? Either works for me.

Microsoft's Windows 8.1 updates also tweak Windows Server 2012

Re: Don't need to reboot each time @Tim Jenkins

TBH if you work in a small company and you're the sql dev and the other guys are devs or business then a sysadmin is just an unaffordable fantasy.

TBH many companies are like this.

TBH if MS completely broke the interface to make basic tasks such as rebooting so obscure as to require googling then TBH MS got it wrong and TBH perhaps you could throw a little less blame at the people trying to use an unnecessarily screwed up interface.

Re: Don't need to reboot each time

Don't. Just don't give windows any excuse to mess up again. Just go for the reboot, it's only a couple of minutes each time, really just do it. If your way works 95% of the time I can guarantee that last 5% will cost you more than you ever save.

(and the interface to server 2012 sucks like a pro. When you have to google how to reboot it becaues you've never done it before and it resembles nothing you've ever seen, and the other guy has forgotten how, then you have to open a command prompt... Dump it, MS)

Torvalds rails at Linux developer: 'I'm f*cking tired of your code'

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

> I quoted the bit you got wrong.

what, this bit?

"

> It seems some people are really struggling to get what I say

We're not - it's just that what you say is wrong.

"

Erm, can you even distinguish between a formal and an informal understanding?

And me saying "I do have the strong innate understanding that allows me to use english as well as, or better than, many." simply is me claiming that I'm good with it, but that's not expertise. I'm not an expert. Now I've said it explicitly twice.

You do seem to be reading into things what you wish.

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

> it's just that what you say is wrong

just saying 'you're wrong' repeatedly doesn't advance the debate.

> But you set yourself up as being some sort of expert

likewise your inability to read my prior post disclaiming exactly this.

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

@Don Jefe, @Vic

It seems some people are really struggling to get what I say. It should be clear enough.

> It is just extraordinarily silly for someone to argue that developing their own rules for the use of a language is a valid use of that language if the target audience doesn't also use the same rules

This is completely true and I fully endorse it, however it has no relationship to what I originally said, that one could grasp and apply the informal rules of natural language without being taught the formal rules of the language.

This does not relate to mutating the rules of the language. I mentioned not capitalising some words to make clear it was by personal choice not typo, so you wouldn't get all smug on me. If that single item has managed to distract you from my main point, that is depressing.

> You can't just go mixing them up as you please until you've first demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the accepted ways of their use

I thought I had.

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

> Yours? Got a receipt?

Très glib. It's mine by use, as it is yours by use.

> some sort of linguistic expert

I did not claim this, I claim I can use english competently. I'm not e.g. David Crystal who has earned that title.

> quite such a ballsup of said expertise

A disagreement between us does not necessarily comprise a ballsup on my part. It may, and you're free to show where I failed, but I've put my point as cogently as possible. I'd like this discussion to be constructive, please.

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

> Every language has rules

Exactly! I agree totally.

There are formal rules about sentence structure etc. which are taught in schools, and there's the innate grasp which comes from exposure to the language. I have the latter only, which includes an informal but still strong set of rules, which embody the formal rules, and go much further.

The idea that one can't use language unless it's taught in class is as bizarre as saying one picks up the meanings of words only from a dictionary.

> Think of it this way - web browsers use formal specifications in order to interpret web pages.

There's a fundamental difference between natural language and formal languages. Formal languages are for a limited domain and *require* an unambiguous definition. English is *not* a formally defined language. If you don't realise the difference, you're going to struggle in IT (Incidentally I do have a background in formal semantics though I've forgotten most of it).

> to the extent where your message is warped and difficult to understand.

Seriously, what in my original post was 'difficult to understand'?

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

@localzuk

Oh yes I do get to choose. My language, my choice, and I chose. Feel free to 'correct' my capitalisation to what you think it should be, all the while ignoring its larger point I'm making.

Re: coding @AC 2014-5-5 SometimeOrOtherPerhapsElRegCanRestoreTimestampsPlease

> If you do not know what the first person pronoun is, [ ...] If language is a tool of your trade, you should know some basic grammar

No (kind of), yes (kind of), you need to be clear about definitions and here you're conflating two things.

A formal understanding of language is entirely separate from the instinctive grasp necessary for use. I have no formal understanding; I don't know how to parse a sentence and label its parts. I don't know what a pronoun is, never mind the first person type. Or adjectives, or adverbs or gerunds or...

I do have the strong innate understanding that allows me to use english as well as, or better than, many. Look over my previous posts. Therefore I'd say this demonstrates that a formal understanding is unnecessary. Honestly, what would I gain from it?

Notes.

1) english is my first and (regrettably) only language

2) The spelling of english uncapitalised is by choice.

3) Transmission of a clear message is far more important than the minutiae of precisely 'correct' spelling (whatever that is), but the former is never so bitched over as the latter. When some commenter says "you could have said that in half the number of words" instead of picking on the greengrocer's apostrophe, I'll cheer.

Re: Odd timing @Ken Hagan

> If the kernel can't protect itself against bugs in user-space programs, it isn't a very good kernel.

upvoted as it's a good point, but I don't think systemd is a *normal* userspace process. From wiki "systemd is a system management daemon designed exclusively for the Linux kernel API. For systems using it, it is the first process to execute in user space during the Linux startup process. Therefore, it is also the parent process of all child processes in user space. "

It isn't kernel but it does seemed privileged in some ways so *perhaps* it can be expected to be written more carefully than other userspace code.

(disclaimer: am linux noob)

Hey, Michael Lewis: Stop DEMONISING Wall Street’s SUPERHUMAN high-speed trading

Re: @Tim Worstal @ BlueGreen @Squander Two

No, I was unclear. funny thing is, this bit

>> Yes, they had to lie because they fucked up because those wankers couldn't see what was coming even though it was their fucking job?

was clear. That it was about banks as entities, not libor fixers. is utterly clear. Here is that quote in context (from here):

"

>> Right, so the banks didn't predict the collapse they in large part led us into so when it when it blew up in their faces they had to lie to avert a likely disaster?

>> Yes, they had to lie because they fucked up because those wankers couldn't see what was coming even though it was their fucking job?

"

Banks + established policies, see, not libor fixers. Don't misrepresent me here like you tried to misrepresent me before (I did not say the two things you attributed to me in your previous post, here).

You're working hard to defend the banks & their greed, ineptitude and the danger that came from this. You're most insistent. Curious.

(by the way you've not said anything about my post here about whether the Community Reinvestment Act did nearly as much damage as you say it did. As I don't have the background to judge I'd be interested in your opinion.

Re: @Tim Worstal @ BlueGreen @Squander Two

Right, I see what you're saying. OK, my original use of 'they' was referring to banks as corporate entities in their entirety. The 2nd use was libor fixers as a few individuals. I was unclear. My mistake.

> Have you never worked somewhere where some people fix or alleviate the errors of others?

Let me try to be clear: I don't think banks (as collective entities) did an acceptable job. Libor fixing was insider by individuals, ok, fair enough, but insane lending practices were systemic to the banks' structure, not isolated pockets of people within. That's the problem.

> Are you suggesting that no-one in banking lost their jobs over the '08 crash?

Are you implying the people responsible were all held accountable? Perhaps any sent to prison? The people responsible for loosening banks' lending practices? What are you trying to defend?

Yes, the line between a banking corporation and the people that compose it is not being well represented here by me. I accept that.

> far more bankers would have lost their jobs, being judged unfit for their posts by the market itself, as they should be.

The idea of 'the market' ... I have no faith in it any more (as it stands currently).

> This isn't a sob story, just a counterexample to your claim that no-one has been judged unfit

Don't misrepresent me. I never said that.

> in response to your insistence that every single employee of every single bank is directly guilty of causing the crash.

Or that.

> No, I think there was some incompetence and some deceit, with large-scale effects.

SOME?? jesus, SOME??!?

Re: crash was caused primarily by bad mortgages. @ Tom 13

> You are going to get so many downvotes

Reg commenters aren't perfect by any means but a valid point still counts. Let's actually count the downvotes when they happen, ok?

> The US Congress still requires banks to make loans to people who can't afford them or face being charged with racial discrimination.

This may or may not be valid. I can't judge but maybe you can <http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&TC=1> "Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? / / Two Federal Reserve economists examine whether available data support critics' claims that the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the subprime mortgage crisis."

Summary:

"Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."

Like I said, I can't judge the veracity of this.

> British retail banks did a certain amount of bad lending too

Yes, I know a couple that got into huge debt (like, huuuuge), and the deeper they went, they observed that the more the banks pushed loans at them (until it went titsup). The bank then reduced their repayments to sweet FA & evergreened the loans so they don't materialise on their books for as long as possible. They certainly weren't an isolated example.

Re: @Tim Worstal @ BlueGreen @Squander Two

> The first quote is you doing exactly what you claim in the second quote you're not doing.

First quote is *They* should be given 'credit' for lying to cover up the continent sized turd *they* created?.

That we me sounding incredulous that you could even propose as excusable their lying to cover up their mess.

second quote is I did not suggest that the libor guys necessarily had anything to do with the mortgage guys.

Which says I agree with your point that the two banking sectors were distinct and likely unrelated.

What's the link between them? Where's the contradiction?

And you've avoided my questions, to wit

> And how badly does one have to fuck up before one is judged unfit for a post?

-and-

> Do you detect a pattern? (viz. of large scale incompetence and/or deceit)