I don't see how any government can regulate the idea of "worth." People give items worth, not governments. Though it's probably too much to ask the poor leadership we see all around us to understand this.
Congress can say, for instance, that a pound note can not be used on US soil and create all kinds of problems, but they can't say a pound note has no worth. I wonder if they even have an inkling that there is a difference.
Okay... really... I have a hard time feeling bad about that.
The fact is that those companies bought into web apps that worked on ONE browser. That's stupid. As a matter of fact, if you are going to build an app that works on ONE browser on ONE platform why not write the thing in an actual language because the advantage is supposed to be using it on multiple platforms.
It seems to me unfettered capitalism is pretty much a recipe to *reduce* freedom. Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything. That ends up being a net loss.
The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.
Every debate we have in the US right now becomes a false dilemma. "Scaling back" capitalism, or doing anything that falls in the middle ground between socialism and capitalism, simply gets a person labeled a "communist" or worse. So we can't have debates.
Our last two presidential cycles should have included debates about corporate power but they didn't. This is because we have a certain group of people controlling the agenda.
Well when there isn't an explanation of what is being asked and the test was written by the same person that puts the iconography in airport bathrooms....
This whole thing is happening because of two reasons: 1) People are afraid of a word: socialism and 2) most of our population has bought into the debate being framed as a false dilemma argument and, so if we have single payer we are therefore a socialist country.
The republicans are right about something for the wrong reasons: we didn't really have a ACA or Obamacare debate. That's because the U.S. doesn't really have *debates* anymore. We allow someone to frame the debate (usually the Republicans, but sometimes the Mass Media) and no one discusses how that frame is causing a logical fallacy.
There is also a 3) many people can't get beyond their own ideologies. Off the record many of the biggest multinationals have told reporters that they have run the numbers and single payer would help them, but they come out because of bias at the boardroom level. Small business would DEFINITELY be helped by single payer as talented people would be more inclined to accept a small business job without the healthcare fear.
Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?
For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."
I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.
Actually, though it is never to be put in an actual paper, people in the sciences use it quite often to get background on a concept. There are a lot of good pages on physics principles, for instance, that get updated by people that know what they are talking about.
It's supposed to be like any encyclopedia... a way to get some quick knowledge about a topic and nothing more.
After going through similar situations several times I stopped trying to edit. I put pointers on talk pages once in a while, but even that is unpleasant.
The first time Jimmy Wales did his "let me put my big ugly face on every page and beg for money" campaign, that linked to a talk page. I put on that page that I would NEVER give Wikipedia any donations until they had their community under control. It's never gotten even close to being under control. It's one of the most unfriendly community of users I've ever seen on the internet (I think I would even rate "Something Awful" higher) and there is nothing ever done to curb the fighting and the personal vendettas that happen. I am all for the idea, but it isn't worth contributing when it's just the wild west and there are no sheriffs (or *everyone* is a sheriff).
The original intention of copyright was so encourage people to build stuff, get benefit from the work, then release the work out into the public domain for this precise reason! It wasn't put in the Constitution so people could have cash cows for long periods of time, it was put in there so the work could could go out into the wild after a brief period of time and be built upon.
So, in being a shill on this you've somehow managed to be completely right.
Slashdot Mirror
The makers of Zeitgeist are concerned about privacy??
Everyone knows that "overrated" is the "I disagree" mod.
I don't see how any government can regulate the idea of "worth." People give items worth, not governments. Though it's probably too much to ask the poor leadership we see all around us to understand this.
Congress can say, for instance, that a pound note can not be used on US soil and create all kinds of problems, but they can't say a pound note has no worth. I wonder if they even have an inkling that there is a difference.
Ban all rouge USB devices by policy
And ban the blue, silver, purple, grey, and every other damn color too!
You're whole posit ISN'T bullshit, but my reading is.
Bitcoin was at $130ish when Silk Road shut down. Then there was hand waiving about a "crash." It "crashed" all the way to $100.
As I write this it looks like Mt. Gox is $265.
You're whole posit is bullshit.
Okay... really... I have a hard time feeling bad about that.
The fact is that those companies bought into web apps that worked on ONE browser. That's stupid. As a matter of fact, if you are going to build an app that works on ONE browser on ONE platform why not write the thing in an actual language because the advantage is supposed to be using it on multiple platforms.
Wikipedia?
All of a sudden Jimmy Whales' huge face would appear over your entire browser window begging for money.
NO WAY.
It seems to me unfettered capitalism is pretty much a recipe to *reduce* freedom. Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything. That ends up being a net loss.
The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.
Every debate we have in the US right now becomes a false dilemma. "Scaling back" capitalism, or doing anything that falls in the middle ground between socialism and capitalism, simply gets a person labeled a "communist" or worse. So we can't have debates.
Our last two presidential cycles should have included debates about corporate power but they didn't. This is because we have a certain group of people controlling the agenda.
fuck you, TSA. This is not the answer.
Well when there isn't an explanation of what is being asked and the test was written by the same person that puts the iconography in airport bathrooms....
*End* This System
I *still* can't easily buy a box with Ubuntu on it as a consumer.
So screw them.
YEAH! We got a model! Just look at the success that Somalia has with that system!
This whole thing is happening because of two reasons: 1) People are afraid of a word: socialism and 2) most of our population has bought into the debate being framed as a false dilemma argument and, so if we have single payer we are therefore a socialist country.
The republicans are right about something for the wrong reasons: we didn't really have a ACA or Obamacare debate. That's because the U.S. doesn't really have *debates* anymore. We allow someone to frame the debate (usually the Republicans, but sometimes the Mass Media) and no one discusses how that frame is causing a logical fallacy.
There is also a 3) many people can't get beyond their own ideologies. Off the record many of the biggest multinationals have told reporters that they have run the numbers and single payer would help them, but they come out because of bias at the boardroom level. Small business would DEFINITELY be helped by single payer as talented people would be more inclined to accept a small business job without the healthcare fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A
Obviously not canon, but these commercials are mentioned quite a lot.
Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?
For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."
I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.
ib4 someone uses the word "canon."
Actually, though it is never to be put in an actual paper, people in the sciences use it quite often to get background on a concept. There are a lot of good pages on physics principles, for instance, that get updated by people that know what they are talking about.
It's supposed to be like any encyclopedia... a way to get some quick knowledge about a topic and nothing more.
After going through similar situations several times I stopped trying to edit. I put pointers on talk pages once in a while, but even that is unpleasant.
The first time Jimmy Wales did his "let me put my big ugly face on every page and beg for money" campaign, that linked to a talk page. I put on that page that I would NEVER give Wikipedia any donations until they had their community under control. It's never gotten even close to being under control. It's one of the most unfriendly community of users I've ever seen on the internet (I think I would even rate "Something Awful" higher) and there is nothing ever done to curb the fighting and the personal vendettas that happen. I am all for the idea, but it isn't worth contributing when it's just the wild west and there are no sheriffs (or *everyone* is a sheriff).
I'm not impressed with 1984 society at all. That's the point. When our government cares about citizens less than THEY did then it's a problem.
The original intention of copyright was so encourage people to build stuff, get benefit from the work, then release the work out into the public domain for this precise reason! It wasn't put in the Constitution so people could have cash cows for long periods of time, it was put in there so the work could could go out into the wild after a brief period of time and be built upon.
So, in being a shill on this you've somehow managed to be completely right.
Prove that they *don't* have something? Yeah.. that'll work.
It doesn't, however, to incur a late fee on a mortgage payment.
Plus, once again this ignores the contractors who are just S.O.L. for lost wages.