How many millions have been pissed away every year by the US Mint who still mints pointless pennies at a loss?
The US Mint isn't trying to print money to generate value. They print it to enable commerce. For instance, they don't spend $100 bills to offset costs, they do it in response to moving electronic funds, or destroying old $100 bills.
Many people owe their financial status to their circumstances of being born in to the right family (which i argue would happen less with a free market in money and no central bank)
How would the world suddenly and exclusively using bitcoin prevent WalMart heirs, the Mars corporation heirs or real-estate heirs (e.g. the Trumps) from inheriting billions?
(Okay, "sudden" would have to be a little less extreme so that it wasn't a matter of a massive credit crunch that caused those fortunes to disappear at the time of the transition. Say that the ownership survived the transition or some other person took similar ownership).
I understand how Bitcoin's ledger benefits from the computational resources. But it is still phenomenally expensive. And it's also why Bitcoin's value is so fragile... because since China has the majority of the cheap energy, most of the mining rigs are in China. And the Chinese government can turn it off whenever they want.
Given how Facebook pushes new features live, I don't think it's reasonable to judge the app by its present feature set. Far more reasonable to see what they've done in teh past once they get inside the door.
I agree, but part of letting kids make their own choices is making sure those choices have limited consequences. Given how FB gathers data, manipulates users and the general addictiveness of apps and social media, I'm not sure a FB app is a good set of training wheels.
Good for you, although I still think 13 is too young for a phone. Doesn't really change that FB is trying to hook all her friends. So when she does get a cell phone, she'll be installing FB, because that's where her friends are.
Again, look at the number of people who feel compelled to use FB to communicate with people and who are adults. Why should people would be happy about that cancer growing into the next generation?
You can are going to let you child do something that you vehemently is wrong because you don't want them to experience peer pressure?
No, I'm not going to let them do whatever. Way to strawman. But I'm also not going to silently let society apply peer pressure to them. That is, I consider part of protecting my kids isn't just forbidding them from partaking in activities, but also modifying society to be better for them.
Facebook is trying to put pretty intense pressure on children by having all their friends communicate via FB Messenger. Look at the number of people on/. who hate FB, but feel compelled to use it because everyone else is. If you think a parent can stop intense peer pressure... well, I have a bridge to sell you.
Also, children under 13 cannot make responsible choices. I think that's pretty much understood.
The fine wouldn't be because I'm worried about Ireland taking advantage of Apple. It's because (using France as an example), suppose Ireland and France are both trying to woo Apple. Ireland offers an illegal tax rebate, France does not. Eventually Ireland's tax rebate is overturned. Apple knew the risks, Ireland wins, but France (and the rest of the EU countries) lose out.
I grant its a difficult line to draw. And I certainly favor erroring on the side of speech, not censorship. But, as you pointed out, Nazi hate speech is pretty far over on the scale.
I understand that the EU forced Ireland to collect taxes. I just wasn't sure if they also fined Ireland. Because, otherwise, they're incentivizing exactly your (sarcastically stated?) plan.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, if a cop lets an armed criminal shoot civilians, that's bad. If a cop shoots an unarmed civilian, that's bad. It's almost like context matters.
if it's Ireland, I'm certain it was a sweet deal to start with (just to get Apple to settle down there in the first place).
That's the point. The EU doesn't allow "sweet deals" to get Apple to settle there in the first place. This payment are all the back taxes now that the deal Ireland gave them has been determined to be illegal and was unwound.
those who would normally be hit with an estate tax (those in the top 10%)
The estate tax applies zero-point-two percent of families... before the republican cuts. The majority of those estates were already inherited, not generated.
In a way, it's really rational. Think about how often a family less well off may have to hit the reset button, vs. a well to do family. No point in accumulating assets if they're all just seized by creditors.
Slashdot Mirror
Why on earth would that be true? The misogynist boss isn't spending his money...
The US Mint isn't trying to print money to generate value. They print it to enable commerce. For instance, they don't spend $100 bills to offset costs, they do it in response to moving electronic funds, or destroying old $100 bills.
What's fun is that almost no one will be able to cash out their position, because only so many transactions can take place in a single block.
How would the world suddenly and exclusively using bitcoin prevent WalMart heirs, the Mars corporation heirs or real-estate heirs (e.g. the Trumps) from inheriting billions?
(Okay, "sudden" would have to be a little less extreme so that it wasn't a matter of a massive credit crunch that caused those fortunes to disappear at the time of the transition. Say that the ownership survived the transition or some other person took similar ownership).
I understand how Bitcoin's ledger benefits from the computational resources. But it is still phenomenally expensive. And it's also why Bitcoin's value is so fragile... because since China has the majority of the cheap energy, most of the mining rigs are in China. And the Chinese government can turn it off whenever they want.
Given how Facebook pushes new features live, I don't think it's reasonable to judge the app by its present feature set. Far more reasonable to see what they've done in teh past once they get inside the door.
I agree, but part of letting kids make their own choices is making sure those choices have limited consequences. Given how FB gathers data, manipulates users and the general addictiveness of apps and social media, I'm not sure a FB app is a good set of training wheels.
Good for you, although I still think 13 is too young for a phone. Doesn't really change that FB is trying to hook all her friends. So when she does get a cell phone, she'll be installing FB, because that's where her friends are.
Again, look at the number of people who feel compelled to use FB to communicate with people and who are adults. Why should people would be happy about that cancer growing into the next generation?
No, I'm not going to let them do whatever. Way to strawman. But I'm also not going to silently let society apply peer pressure to them. That is, I consider part of protecting my kids isn't just forbidding them from partaking in activities, but also modifying society to be better for them.
Far more importantly, if you hook them early, you don't have to worry about them going to another social network.
Facebook is trying to put pretty intense pressure on children by having all their friends communicate via FB Messenger. Look at the number of people on /. who hate FB, but feel compelled to use it because everyone else is. If you think a parent can stop intense peer pressure... well, I have a bridge to sell you.
Also, children under 13 cannot make responsible choices. I think that's pretty much understood.
The fine wouldn't be because I'm worried about Ireland taking advantage of Apple. It's because (using France as an example), suppose Ireland and France are both trying to woo Apple. Ireland offers an illegal tax rebate, France does not. Eventually Ireland's tax rebate is overturned. Apple knew the risks, Ireland wins, but France (and the rest of the EU countries) lose out.
I grant its a difficult line to draw. And I certainly favor erroring on the side of speech, not censorship. But, as you pointed out, Nazi hate speech is pretty far over on the scale.
I understand that the EU forced Ireland to collect taxes. I just wasn't sure if they also fined Ireland. Because, otherwise, they're incentivizing exactly your (sarcastically stated?) plan.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, if a cop lets an armed criminal shoot civilians, that's bad. If a cop shoots an unarmed civilian, that's bad. It's almost like context matters.
Studies about conventional wisdom are good because sometime conventional wisdom is wrong (e.g. geocentric universe models).
That's what this article is about. The EU is enforcing their international tax laws on Ireland.
Seems like that could have been their plan. Did the EU fine them 13 billion to discourage Ireland from doing that?
That's the point. The EU doesn't allow "sweet deals" to get Apple to settle there in the first place. This payment are all the back taxes now that the deal Ireland gave them has been determined to be illegal and was unwound.
The estate tax applies zero-point-two percent of families... before the republican cuts. The majority of those estates were already inherited, not generated.
In a way, it's really rational. Think about how often a family less well off may have to hit the reset button, vs. a well to do family. No point in accumulating assets if they're all just seized by creditors.
My adblocker blocks interstitial ads. Bitcoin stories, not so much.
I kind of like that copyright claims are resolved by the courts, not Google.
I mean, protesters got the 40 hour work week, ended segregation in the US and South Africa, and a lot of other benefits. That's not nothing.
If you're on a conference call, you should only be unmuting to talk, and then remuting anyway.