That's the problem with online dating... It has a stigma of being for "desperate" people. So quality people who have trouble finding a relationship won't join because they feel it would make them seem desperate. If people just saw it as a way to vastly increase their probability of meeting a quality person, while not sacrificing their normal dating potential, it would be populated much more heavily with much better quality.
In summary, normal people who are single, please join a dating website so they won't suck.
I know what you mean. I live in a smallish town in Ohio. I don't mind going to the nearest metro area to date, but they aren't even willing to consider what they believe to be a "long distance relationship". So I'm limited to farm girls and the liberal arts students at the nearest college. I did finally meet an amazing woman who was willing to do the distance for a relationship, and then moved to New York (go figure). Unfortunately, while I can deal with a 2 hour drive, a half day of flights and traveling is a lot harder to do.
I agree with you, the incentive for any online dating site is to keep you there as long as possible. Any profile where someone hasn't logged in for over a month is DEAD and should not appear in search results.
I've been trying to figure out a good incentive system. The ideal would be a charge based on dates, but that relies on people being honest about what happens in the real world. I'd be happy to fork over a few bucks every time I landed a date if it meant that the site was actually populated with people who were interested in dating. But if I had a dime every time OKCupid recommended someone who hasn't logged in since 2007, I'd be rich enough to get dates in the real world.
I never thought of it that way, but I think you may be on to something. I have found the "body type" indicators to be a poor predictor of actual body type. The best predictor is how much of their body is in their profile picture...
Ok, then leave. There are plenty of police states out there where you can sacrifice your freedom for security, which you believe to be freedom. I hate to tell you, but when the US was founded, crime existed. That didn't make it any less free. Crime keeps dropping, so let's keep a free country so people can continue to improve quality of life (which reduces crime).
Yeah it's supposed to be. Communism is based on the premise that all people generally want to make society better. How has that worked out in the past? Capitalism is based on the premise that all people act in their own self interest. For some reason I'm more inclined to agree with the premise behind capitalism. The crazy thing is, capitalism does a better job at advancing society than communism...
GDP is a horrible way to measure an economy in the first place... It's a shame they don't use GDI instead. Income increases are what really improve quality of life and standards of living. Measuring consumption is just easier I suppose.
However, saying government is not a family, while true, defeats the purpose of an analogy... Yes they aren't the same, but at the end of the day, we are spending too much. Our debt is too high. Using a family as an analogy helps people because the government budget is so large, it is beyond comprehension. If we could use a tiny government as a reference, I'd prefer that, but seeing as how there is no such thing as a small government anymore...
Finally, you had a good argument going until you used the word "teabaggy". Ad-hominem attacks are a huge detractor from your credibility. To use your "touchdown at a tennis match" analogy, you just yelled "YOUR MOM IS A WHORE".
If everyone got a basic income, you assume that they would be motivated to unleash their natural born talents. However, I have just as much evidence that they would then simply be happy to live on the basic income and produce nothing for their entire lives. First law of economics, people respond to incentives.
No, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer. What I am trying to say is ALL businesses would increase their prices if they knew they wouldn't lose any customers. If the government raises prices, you have to either move out of the country (expensive) or stop making as much income (which makes the debt problem worse) to avoid the increased taxes. However, businesses only raise prices if the increased cost brings in more revenue. That is to say that the marginal increase brings in more revenue than the lost customers would have brought in. What I am trying to say is that the Laffer Curve exists, and it based on good economic theory. What I argue is that we are already past the point where increasing tax rates will increase revenue. You obviously don't believe that is true. I believe if anything decreasing tax rates (or even better making the progressive taxation curve flatter) would bring in more revenue.
And as for the spending, I guarantee at least one quarter of the federal budget is pure waste anyway. I admit, a large portion of the public employees would be laid off, which is why we need tax cuts to encourage the private sector to hire these people.
And if you want to talk about MY budget, not only do I live within my means, I save for the future. In fact, unlike the federal government, I pay off my ENTIRE debt every month, and can afford to take in no income for an entire year without reducing my standard of living or accepting any charitable or federal handouts. I realize that I am extremely lucky to be able to do that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that maybe we should turn off the debt faucet.
If I were like the Federal government, I'd have maxed out my credit cards, I would be trying to get a new one, and would demand a raise. I wouldn't dare cut back spending on the servants in the yard of my mansion, I couldn't possibly stop buying a new car every month, and I would in no way turn down any of the millions of beggars that rang my doorbell.
If you want to talk about people who don't understand business, talk to politicians. If the government operated as a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago. The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption. The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%? The government is spending WAY too much no matter how you slice the cake, and yet both parties have made suggestions to cut from the CBO baseline, which is NOT a cut. I don't want to cut a trillion over the next decade, I want to cut a trillion from just THIS YEAR's budget (which still hasn't been finished I remind you), and even THAT won't cover the deficit.
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
To continue your analogy, the Democrats insist we are actually starving, and we just need to keep eating like we have been to "create jobs for fat cells". Meanwhile the Republicans claim to be disgusted by our bellies and while we are eating 5000 calories today, we need to make drastic cuts and only eat 5999 calories tomorrow because the Democrats want to eat 6000 calories. Bear in mind, we only actually have 4000 calories of food per day of supply, but there's no need to cut back right now. If we start running low on food, we can just raid the rich neighbor's pantry and take some of his food. He can afford it. Stupid bastard's just been stocking it up for a rainy day.
I would suggest that unlike the tea party's plan of becoming anorexic and capping spending, we go bulimic instead. Start vomiting up entire portions of the government that aren't needed at all. We've been gorging for far too long at the buffet, and it's time we go for a purge.
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;" However it does not restrict our desire to minimize the amount of borrowed money.
And if you'd read the Constitution you'd see that the Tea Party is not nearly aggressive enough in eliminating all spending that is not in line with the Constitution. If we stopped spending money on parts of the government that are outside of its limits, we would not have a debt crises.
Do you want a system where only the rich can buy food, cars, tvs, iphones, and everything else? Just because the government isn't involved doesn't mean only the rich will be able to afford it. What if government decided everyone deserved a yacht? Is it fair that only the rich can afford them?
So Linux is a pale "beech tree forest" (what faget means in Romanian as it is not an English word) that has allergies and bleeds uncontrollably? Thanks for the heads up...
I don't think we are stealing from OPEC, or Canada (our biggest oil supplier). Iraq probably, but I don't support that. We buy oil from other countries, renewable energy subsidies are taken under threat of imprisonment from those that produce wealth.
As for your underground hydro, why is this better than above ground reservoirs?
And no, as an engineer, I love innovation. However I can differentiate a good theory and a practical solution. I would much rather fund cold fusion research, which would render all other energy generation methods pointless, than dumping money into solar and wind power.
No, what is ethically unacceptable is stealing from people by force to build uneconomical and unreliable power sources. Fossil fuel use is no more "catastrophic" than natural sources of CO2 (wildfires, volcanoes, etc). Life goes on. What will fuck up future generations is our mountain of debt, not our fossil fuel usage.
PS, underground hydro? WTF? Hydro energy is based on height, you put it in the ground, and it takes energy to bring it back up... If you want to store energy underground, compress air in caverns... But that is expensive as shit, not to mention dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem with online dating... It has a stigma of being for "desperate" people. So quality people who have trouble finding a relationship won't join because they feel it would make them seem desperate. If people just saw it as a way to vastly increase their probability of meeting a quality person, while not sacrificing their normal dating potential, it would be populated much more heavily with much better quality.
In summary, normal people who are single, please join a dating website so they won't suck.
I know what you mean. I live in a smallish town in Ohio. I don't mind going to the nearest metro area to date, but they aren't even willing to consider what they believe to be a "long distance relationship". So I'm limited to farm girls and the liberal arts students at the nearest college. I did finally meet an amazing woman who was willing to do the distance for a relationship, and then moved to New York (go figure). Unfortunately, while I can deal with a 2 hour drive, a half day of flights and traveling is a lot harder to do.
I agree with you, the incentive for any online dating site is to keep you there as long as possible. Any profile where someone hasn't logged in for over a month is DEAD and should not appear in search results.
I've been trying to figure out a good incentive system. The ideal would be a charge based on dates, but that relies on people being honest about what happens in the real world. I'd be happy to fork over a few bucks every time I landed a date if it meant that the site was actually populated with people who were interested in dating. But if I had a dime every time OKCupid recommended someone who hasn't logged in since 2007, I'd be rich enough to get dates in the real world.
I never thought of it that way, but I think you may be on to something. I have found the "body type" indicators to be a poor predictor of actual body type. The best predictor is how much of their body is in their profile picture...
"And in fact, the historical record shows that higher taxation in the USA has generally lead to prosperity." [Citation Needed]
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm
If you're God, do you ever run out of modpoints?
Ok, then leave. There are plenty of police states out there where you can sacrifice your freedom for security, which you believe to be freedom. I hate to tell you, but when the US was founded, crime existed. That didn't make it any less free. Crime keeps dropping, so let's keep a free country so people can continue to improve quality of life (which reduces crime).
Yeah it's supposed to be. Communism is based on the premise that all people generally want to make society better. How has that worked out in the past? Capitalism is based on the premise that all people act in their own self interest. For some reason I'm more inclined to agree with the premise behind capitalism. The crazy thing is, capitalism does a better job at advancing society than communism...
Maybe that revolution would have continued if we didn't move to a fiat currency?
GDP is a horrible way to measure an economy in the first place... It's a shame they don't use GDI instead. Income increases are what really improve quality of life and standards of living. Measuring consumption is just easier I suppose.
However, saying government is not a family, while true, defeats the purpose of an analogy... Yes they aren't the same, but at the end of the day, we are spending too much. Our debt is too high. Using a family as an analogy helps people because the government budget is so large, it is beyond comprehension. If we could use a tiny government as a reference, I'd prefer that, but seeing as how there is no such thing as a small government anymore...
Finally, you had a good argument going until you used the word "teabaggy". Ad-hominem attacks are a huge detractor from your credibility. To use your "touchdown at a tennis match" analogy, you just yelled "YOUR MOM IS A WHORE".
No, YOU can pay for it. Speaking as "WE" without the input of everyone else is evil.
If everyone got a basic income, you assume that they would be motivated to unleash their natural born talents. However, I have just as much evidence that they would then simply be happy to live on the basic income and produce nothing for their entire lives. First law of economics, people respond to incentives.
No, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer. What I am trying to say is ALL businesses would increase their prices if they knew they wouldn't lose any customers. If the government raises prices, you have to either move out of the country (expensive) or stop making as much income (which makes the debt problem worse) to avoid the increased taxes. However, businesses only raise prices if the increased cost brings in more revenue. That is to say that the marginal increase brings in more revenue than the lost customers would have brought in. What I am trying to say is that the Laffer Curve exists, and it based on good economic theory. What I argue is that we are already past the point where increasing tax rates will increase revenue. You obviously don't believe that is true. I believe if anything decreasing tax rates (or even better making the progressive taxation curve flatter) would bring in more revenue.
And as for the spending, I guarantee at least one quarter of the federal budget is pure waste anyway. I admit, a large portion of the public employees would be laid off, which is why we need tax cuts to encourage the private sector to hire these people.
And if you want to talk about MY budget, not only do I live within my means, I save for the future. In fact, unlike the federal government, I pay off my ENTIRE debt every month, and can afford to take in no income for an entire year without reducing my standard of living or accepting any charitable or federal handouts. I realize that I am extremely lucky to be able to do that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that maybe we should turn off the debt faucet.
If I were like the Federal government, I'd have maxed out my credit cards, I would be trying to get a new one, and would demand a raise. I wouldn't dare cut back spending on the servants in the yard of my mansion, I couldn't possibly stop buying a new car every month, and I would in no way turn down any of the millions of beggars that rang my doorbell.
If you want to talk about people who don't understand business, talk to politicians. If the government operated as a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago. The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption. The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%? The government is spending WAY too much no matter how you slice the cake, and yet both parties have made suggestions to cut from the CBO baseline, which is NOT a cut. I don't want to cut a trillion over the next decade, I want to cut a trillion from just THIS YEAR's budget (which still hasn't been finished I remind you), and even THAT won't cover the deficit.
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
To continue your analogy, the Democrats insist we are actually starving, and we just need to keep eating like we have been to "create jobs for fat cells". Meanwhile the Republicans claim to be disgusted by our bellies and while we are eating 5000 calories today, we need to make drastic cuts and only eat 5999 calories tomorrow because the Democrats want to eat 6000 calories. Bear in mind, we only actually have 4000 calories of food per day of supply, but there's no need to cut back right now. If we start running low on food, we can just raid the rich neighbor's pantry and take some of his food. He can afford it. Stupid bastard's just been stocking it up for a rainy day.
I would suggest that unlike the tea party's plan of becoming anorexic and capping spending, we go bulimic instead. Start vomiting up entire portions of the government that aren't needed at all. We've been gorging for far too long at the buffet, and it's time we go for a purge.
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;" However it does not restrict our desire to minimize the amount of borrowed money.
And if you'd read the Constitution you'd see that the Tea Party is not nearly aggressive enough in eliminating all spending that is not in line with the Constitution. If we stopped spending money on parts of the government that are outside of its limits, we would not have a debt crises.
Sorry, that's in Utah... Well if holes are something dug by man. If not, then I think the biggest hole is the pacific ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine
Look kid, you're just not cut out for commenting on Slashdot... You might want to try Youtube or maybe 4chan.
Do you want a system where only the rich can buy food, cars, tvs, iphones, and everything else? Just because the government isn't involved doesn't mean only the rich will be able to afford it. What if government decided everyone deserved a yacht? Is it fair that only the rich can afford them?
Impossible to buy? I'll give you the handful of 512MB drives that are worthless to me for the price of shipping.
So Linux is a pale "beech tree forest" (what faget means in Romanian as it is not an English word) that has allergies and bleeds uncontrollably? Thanks for the heads up...
No, that was an ill thought out field change from the original design.
I don't think we are stealing from OPEC, or Canada (our biggest oil supplier). Iraq probably, but I don't support that. We buy oil from other countries, renewable energy subsidies are taken under threat of imprisonment from those that produce wealth.
As for your underground hydro, why is this better than above ground reservoirs?
And no, as an engineer, I love innovation. However I can differentiate a good theory and a practical solution. I would much rather fund cold fusion research, which would render all other energy generation methods pointless, than dumping money into solar and wind power.
No, what is ethically unacceptable is stealing from people by force to build uneconomical and unreliable power sources. Fossil fuel use is no more "catastrophic" than natural sources of CO2 (wildfires, volcanoes, etc). Life goes on. What will fuck up future generations is our mountain of debt, not our fossil fuel usage.
PS, underground hydro? WTF? Hydro energy is based on height, you put it in the ground, and it takes energy to bring it back up... If you want to store energy underground, compress air in caverns... But that is expensive as shit, not to mention dangerous.