The improvement over correspondence courses is the real-time interaction. You get quiz results instantly, and you can ask and answer questions as you're doing the material in the forums. In a correspondence course, the shortest time you have to wait is at least days.
Funny how the Federalists, represented by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, had a different, much broader interpretation of "General Welfare" than you do. Selection bias, much?
Your history needs improvement. The first Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Hamilton, interpreted it in a much more general manner than you do. And he was a Founding Father.
Let's look at the opinion of another Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton:
the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
What if Obama takes out the individual mandate, so no one has to buy health insurance. In return, Republicans admit what they know in their hearts, that the national debt doesn't matter. The Fed can fund the government indefinitely at zero cost. Fund government services with Federal Reserve debt. Taxes aren't even necessary!
Credit existed long before the Federal Reserve. J. P. Morgan used created money to help out banks in the Panic of 1907. The Bank of England created money to get its country out of panics in the 1800s. The private banking system evolved the system that the Fed later put in place on a more equitable basis (loaning to all banks instead of only to those that Morgan had a personal affinity for, for example). Elasticity was necessary for the banking system to function. The Fed just made that elasticity more under the public's control, so that it could be used for the General Welfare instead of for Morgan's private profits.
The idea is to decrease the motivation to steal. The purpose of an economy is to produce goods and services. When everyone has enough money to buy what goods and services they want, there is no motivation for theft. Even if someone is perverse and steals, you can just replace it.
And yet Japan's been trying to devalue its currency by making it less scarce, but investors keep valuing it higher. I guess your quantity theory of money fails.
The point is, he said that the problem was to factor large prime numbers. Prime numbers. The factorization of every prime number is 1 and the number...
In conclusion, Gates is a sloppy proofreader at best, and a complete idiot at worst.
Because a prime number p has only the trivial factors 1 and p, in his The Road Ahead, Bill Gates accidentally referred to a trivial operation when he stated "Because both the system's privacy and the security of digital money depend on encryption, a breakthrough in mathematics or computer science that defeats the cryptographic system could be a disaster. The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be the development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers [emphasis added]" (Gates 1995, p. 265).
I was just in Butte, Montana where they have a park on the grounds of former copper mines that drilled holes a mile deep, in the early 20th century. How expensive could it be, with our improved technology?
Govt funding costs are essentially 0. China owns something like 15% of the US Debt. The Fed rebates interest on t-bills it buys. Conclusion: the national debt is a distraction, not a crisis except for those who want to gain political advantage by cynically drumming up fears about it when they know that once they get into power, they can run up the debt with impunity because "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Create more money. As long as we keep innovating, it doesn't matter how big a deficit we run. Reagan proved that. Old people can help innovation, participating in web forums, winning 3D printer contests (see http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1428241/ "83-Year-Old Inventer Wins $40,000 3D Printing Competition").
The point is: we can have universal healthcare without you paying for it. The same way the shadow banking system has $100 trillion without you paying for it; because banks expand both sides of their balance sheet at once all the time, creating money out of thin air.
Life is an unalienable right. It trumps economics. Money should never be used as an excuse not to treat someone. People's lives are more important than figures in a ledger book!
Nothing. Index everything to inflation, which is mostly psychological, and make the indexing seamless with technology. Then individuals can go on with their lives without having to worry about finance so much, and create more innovation.
Straw man. Why not start with a Basic Income of $25k?
The reason standards of living increase is technology, individuals creating new innovations. Then biz can take over and incrementally innovate to package the disruptive innovations. Win-win.
The focus should be on innovation, not how to finance it. The money will take care of itself. Money is a tool, not an end; innovation and the advance of knowledge are the goals. Individuals create innovations; therefore empower individuals, with created money. As long as we continue producing things others want, whether the money is created or comes from taxes or is borrowed is immaterial.
Agree to delay the individual mandate, in exchange for a repeal of the debt-ceiling laws.
Give republicans what they want: they don't have to sign up for health care if they don't want to, and there will be no penalty. But in exchange, get them to admit what they know, that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Just let the government create money (as banks do) to fund services.
A healthier population will create more. The argument should be about the desirability of universal health coverage, not about how to finance it. The Modigliani-Miller theorem of Finance says that if you have a good idea, it doesn't matter how you finance it. Let's stop arguing about finance and concentrate on the important things: the desirability of universal health care and its positive effect on continued innovation.
I think these scientists lack imagination. You can interact with people through forums, where there are no time constraints on gathering together at one time. And you can still ask about kids, only it looks more stupid in print. Because it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The improvement over correspondence courses is the real-time interaction. You get quiz results instantly, and you can ask and answer questions as you're doing the material in the forums. In a correspondence course, the shortest time you have to wait is at least days.
Funny how the Federalists, represented by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, had a different, much broader interpretation of "General Welfare" than you do. Selection bias, much?
Your history needs improvement. The first Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Hamilton, interpreted it in a much more general manner than you do. And he was a Founding Father.
Let's look at the opinion of another Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
What if Obama takes out the individual mandate, so no one has to buy health insurance. In return, Republicans admit what they know in their hearts, that the national debt doesn't matter. The Fed can fund the government indefinitely at zero cost. Fund government services with Federal Reserve debt. Taxes aren't even necessary!
Credit existed long before the Federal Reserve. J. P. Morgan used created money to help out banks in the Panic of 1907. The Bank of England created money to get its country out of panics in the 1800s. The private banking system evolved the system that the Fed later put in place on a more equitable basis (loaning to all banks instead of only to those that Morgan had a personal affinity for, for example). Elasticity was necessary for the banking system to function. The Fed just made that elasticity more under the public's control, so that it could be used for the General Welfare instead of for Morgan's private profits.
The idea is to decrease the motivation to steal. The purpose of an economy is to produce goods and services. When everyone has enough money to buy what goods and services they want, there is no motivation for theft. Even if someone is perverse and steals, you can just replace it.
So the more wikipedia readers there are, the less valuable wikipedia gets?
And yet Japan's been trying to devalue its currency by making it less scarce, but investors keep valuing it higher. I guess your quantity theory of money fails.
When you say "money" you mean the dollar, right, which has been increasing exponentially in supply? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg
Face the criminal consequences of telling the truth? Go USA!
Area man upset that govt is open also upset that govt website is slow!
I guess you touched a nerve with tparty mods!
The point is, he said that the problem was to factor large prime numbers. Prime numbers. The factorization of every prime number is 1 and the number...
In conclusion, Gates is a sloppy proofreader at best, and a complete idiot at worst.
In other news, 640k ought to be enough for everybody.
Also, factoring large prime numbers will break all encryption!
---
From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html:
I was just in Butte, Montana where they have a park on the grounds of former copper mines that drilled holes a mile deep, in the early 20th century. How expensive could it be, with our improved technology?
Govt funding costs are essentially 0. China owns something like 15% of the US Debt. The Fed rebates interest on t-bills it buys. Conclusion: the national debt is a distraction, not a crisis except for those who want to gain political advantage by cynically drumming up fears about it when they know that once they get into power, they can run up the debt with impunity because "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Create more money. As long as we keep innovating, it doesn't matter how big a deficit we run. Reagan proved that. Old people can help innovation, participating in web forums, winning 3D printer contests (see http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1428241/ "83-Year-Old Inventer Wins $40,000 3D Printing Competition").
The point is: we can have universal healthcare without you paying for it. The same way the shadow banking system has $100 trillion without you paying for it; because banks expand both sides of their balance sheet at once all the time, creating money out of thin air.
Life is an unalienable right. It trumps economics. Money should never be used as an excuse not to treat someone. People's lives are more important than figures in a ledger book!
Nothing. Index everything to inflation, which is mostly psychological, and make the indexing seamless with technology. Then individuals can go on with their lives without having to worry about finance so much, and create more innovation.
Straw man. Why not start with a Basic Income of $25k?
The reason standards of living increase is technology, individuals creating new innovations. Then biz can take over and incrementally innovate to package the disruptive innovations. Win-win.
The focus should be on innovation, not how to finance it. The money will take care of itself. Money is a tool, not an end; innovation and the advance of knowledge are the goals. Individuals create innovations; therefore empower individuals, with created money. As long as we continue producing things others want, whether the money is created or comes from taxes or is borrowed is immaterial.
Agree to delay the individual mandate, in exchange for a repeal of the debt-ceiling laws.
Give republicans what they want: they don't have to sign up for health care if they don't want to, and there will be no penalty. But in exchange, get them to admit what they know, that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Just let the government create money (as banks do) to fund services.
A healthier population will create more. The argument should be about the desirability of universal health coverage, not about how to finance it. The Modigliani-Miller theorem of Finance says that if you have a good idea, it doesn't matter how you finance it. Let's stop arguing about finance and concentrate on the important things: the desirability of universal health care and its positive effect on continued innovation.
I think these scientists lack imagination. You can interact with people through forums, where there are no time constraints on gathering together at one time. And you can still ask about kids, only it looks more stupid in print. Because it is.
So Nietzsche was right about "The Gay Science".