"It isn't something I imagined." I believe you. It seems more likely it's something someone else imagined, and you swallowed.
Political correctness isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the left. After people have had a few drinks, yell "The Second Amendment Sucks!" at a NASCAR event, and watch the tolerance and love pour your way.
If by "they" you mean the US Government,no they can't. The government ceded control of the money supply to the Federal Reserve banks.
A dollar isn't "printed" into existence, it's borrowed into existence. We could try paying our debt by borrowing the payoff amount, but repeatedly taking out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is a step backward.
"Please explain where the mathematical impossibility is"
Say there are $16 trillion in the money supply. That means that $16 trillion in loans are outstanding. And the banks want their $16 trillion back. Plus interest.
($16 trillion + interest) > ($16 trillion)
Every loan being paid back with interest can't happen, because the money for interest doesn't exist.
Unless the money supply keeps growing.
($16 trillion + interest) == ($16 trillion + new loans)
And that's why fractional reserve banking is a pyramid scheme. Without new loans, the music stops. And lots of people (and banks) are left without a chair.
"So the question remains - why is it a big deal if animal behavior is altered?"
Depends on the alteration, of course, but in general imposing new stressors often leads to death, even extinction.
"calling humans an invasive species discounts our role in nature.... altering nature to the full extent that we're able"
Yes, altering the environment is pretty much the defining characteristic of an invasive species. With the exception of our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors, "our role in nature" is to disrupt the extant equilibrium everywhere we go.
Every fractional reserve loan inflates the money supply a little, and once the new money makes its way into the marketplace, it devalues by a little all the rest of the money people are holding.
Loans have to be paid back with interest. The loan amount is conjured from thin air, but who creates the money for the interest payments? Paul's interest payment has to come from money Peter borrowed. Maybe Peter gets his from Pat. But somewhere along the line somebody won't be able to get the money for his interest from another guy, and that guy goes bankrupt.
It's actually mathematically impossible for everybody to meet their interest payments; for one guy to make the payments, another has to lose money he borrowed.
"There haven't been ANY hyperinflation episodes in developed countries for more than 50 years"
To put that in context, Dona Branca's pyramid scheme lasted only 14 years, Lou Pearlman's lasted only 20 years, and Bernie Madoff's lasted only 30 years.
"Ignorance" can mean simply that one does not know, and that's no vice. I think the ignorance mentioned here is a disinterest in learning.
If Faith is belief without verification, then Faith is the enemy of science, because science is based entirely on the idea of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. Religious faith stops at the hypothesis.
From the context it seems clear that OP was saying, but I'll attempt to clarify:
1) the scientific method historically has proven a better vetter of hypotheses than believing really hard in religious orthodoxies' explanations of natural phenomena;
2) the scientific method requiires rigorous and objective standards, and is incompatible with the subjective/feel-good/suspension-of-disbelief approaches believers take toward religion.
I think Science is not about confirming what we want to believe, but more just learning how things work.
You're right that the LHC does it's job; the Higgs Boson is one of the century's biggest discoveries. And, incidentally, that confirmation was exactly what many hoped for. And disproving string theory was also something some hoped for.
So I don't understand where the grumpy comes from. It's been a spectacular success.
Hi your spitefulness, I think you skipped the part where the foreign workers were subsidized by their government, and the tariffs were intended to negate said subsidy.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"monogamy is not the predominant mating system among the hominid lineage and probably never was"
You confuse freedom of opinion with freedom from consequences.
The first is impossible to take away. The latter is impossible to grant.
So really your argument makes no sense at all.
You own marriage? Kindly produce the documentation.
Then please explain why you invented polygamy, because it's kind of weird.
Nobody is denying you your opinion, they are just telling you what an asshole you are.
"I just don't see why people can't be polite while they disagree"
1) Withholding civil rights from an entire demographic isn't "NICENESS", no matter how politely you believe you are doing it.
2) People who politely disagree are eminently ignorable.
"It isn't something I imagined."
I believe you. It seems more likely it's something someone else imagined, and you swallowed.
Political correctness isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the left. After people have had a few drinks, yell "The Second Amendment Sucks!" at a NASCAR event, and watch the tolerance and love pour your way.
So you *are* blaming Obama.
If by "they" you mean the US Government,no they can't. The government ceded control of the money supply to the Federal Reserve banks.
A dollar isn't "printed" into existence, it's borrowed into existence. We could try paying our debt by borrowing the payoff amount, but repeatedly taking out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is a step backward.
Not a new concept, still an interesting development.
But they didn't ban half of the cars, they banned half of the driving.
"God is very far ahead of you"
In my own defense, God did have a head start.
I'll bet I'll type "waka wama wana" before He does. So there.
The NTIA wasn't arbiter of all internet content, and the way the internet is designed, nobody can be.
NTIA administers the top level (.com, .uk, .tv) DNS.
Censorship would be imposed on the traffic itself, at the ISP/carrier level, not by the dns root servers.
"Please explain where the mathematical impossibility is"
Say there are $16 trillion in the money supply. That means that $16 trillion in loans are outstanding. And the banks want their $16 trillion back. Plus interest.
($16 trillion + interest) > ($16 trillion)
Every loan being paid back with interest can't happen, because the money for interest doesn't exist.
Unless the money supply keeps growing.
($16 trillion + interest) == ($16 trillion + new loans)
And that's why fractional reserve banking is a pyramid scheme. Without new loans, the music stops. And lots of people (and banks) are left without a chair.
Yeah, I think Teslas are designed to be light and aerodynamic. "The Beast" is neither.
"So the question remains - why is it a big deal if animal behavior is altered?"
Depends on the alteration, of course, but in general imposing new stressors often leads to death, even extinction.
"calling humans an invasive species discounts our role in nature.... altering nature to the full extent that we're able"
Yes, altering the environment is pretty much the defining characteristic of an invasive species. With the exception of our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors, "our role in nature" is to disrupt the extant equilibrium everywhere we go.
"the same benefits coming in early or late."
The earlier money buys more than the later money.
Every fractional reserve loan inflates the money supply a little, and once the new money makes its way into the marketplace, it devalues by a little all the rest of the money people are holding.
Loans have to be paid back with interest. The loan amount is conjured from thin air, but who creates the money for the interest payments? Paul's interest payment has to come from money Peter borrowed. Maybe Peter gets his from Pat. But somewhere along the line somebody won't be able to get the money for his interest from another guy, and that guy goes bankrupt.
It's actually mathematically impossible for everybody to meet their interest payments; for one guy to make the payments, another has to lose money he borrowed.
"The bank has the capital, but not the idea."
In fractional reserve banking, the bank does not have the capital, by definition.
You and I earn money by selling our labor. Fractional reserve banks get money by selling ledger entries.
You're being snarky, I take it. The old scoff-instead-of-rebuttal trick?
The specter that "developed" economies would collapse without growth is a pretty strong clue that those economies are real pyramid schemes.
Fractional Reserve Banking is nothing but a legalized pyramid scheme. That's not sensationalism, politics or hyperbole, it's irrefutable fact.
In what way was the technical revolution a pyramid scheme?
"There haven't been ANY hyperinflation episodes in developed countries for more than 50 years"
To put that in context, Dona Branca's pyramid scheme lasted only 14 years, Lou Pearlman's lasted only 20 years, and Bernie Madoff's lasted only 30 years.
Central bankers are obviously way better.
"Ignorance" can mean simply that one does not know, and that's no vice. I think the ignorance mentioned here is a disinterest in learning.
If Faith is belief without verification, then Faith is the enemy of science, because science is based entirely on the idea of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. Religious faith stops at the hypothesis.
"These words have specific meanings"
And all those words have multiple meanings.
From the context it seems clear that OP was saying, but I'll attempt to clarify:
1) the scientific method historically has proven a better vetter of hypotheses than believing really hard in religious orthodoxies' explanations of natural phenomena;
2) the scientific method requiires rigorous and objective standards, and is incompatible with the subjective/feel-good/suspension-of-disbelief approaches believers take toward religion.
If memory serves, Sheldon was in the String Theory camp.
So what's that, Bazonks?
"it not coming through with what was hoped"
I think Science is not about confirming what we want to believe, but more just learning how things work.
You're right that the LHC does it's job; the Higgs Boson is one of the century's biggest discoveries. And, incidentally, that confirmation was exactly what many hoped for. And disproving string theory was also something some hoped for.
So I don't understand where the grumpy comes from. It's been a spectacular success.
I'll try. Supersymmetry predicted the existence of subatomic particles which the LHC would detect. The LHC hasn't detected them.
Hi your spitefulness, I think you skipped the part where the foreign workers were subsidized by their government, and the tariffs were intended to negate said subsidy.