The Koran is the less important part of Islamic dogma (just like the Bible is for Catholicism and the Torah is for Judaism). It's all about the Hadith (and the Magisterium for Catholicism and Talmud for Judaism).
As for what the Hadith stand for... well it ain't pretty.
Actually AUFS requires kernel patches, it's never been mainlined because the kernel maintainers like their own union mounts better... even though they are far less useful (not write-through like AUFS, which is really nice for something like a file server) and forever undelivered. That said, I think Ubuntu and SUSE still come with AUFS patched in... for Debian you have to compile your own patched kernel or use something like the Liquorix kernel.
Ditto, I refuse to buy any game with always online DRM for the single player part of the game for the moment (I'm so glad that prevented me from buying D3 BTW). When BG&E2 comes out I'll have to revalue that position, but for now Ubisoft is losing sales in my case.
I'd say Norway if you can swing it or Australia... the former has oil, the latter just about everything else natural resource wise and a low population density to spread the wealth around. Something which both Norway and Australia are willing to do, without being afraid of taxing the hell out of natural resource profits to do it... the Australian implementation of the supertax on mining shows a willingness to not let the country devolve into neo-feudalism.
I personally expect solar power and offline power storage breakthroughs in the near future, in which case Australia would become one of the most self sufficient first world nations in the world (the US has all the natural resources for this as well, but the class divide is going to get ugly there... debt funding won't last forever, but raising taxation to sustainable levels is essentially impossible... their population is too well indoctrinated, they're fucked, neo-feudalism ahoy).
New Zealand might seem to be in a similar position as Australia but IMO any country which manages a current account deficit with a trade surplus is run by traitors or idiots...
If they don't have faith that you won't devalue again in the near future you can simply perform international trade in gold or whatever until confidence is restored. They don't need to want your currency or debt, only your goods. Of course you can't sustain a trade deficit any more, but that goes out the window either way.
With inflation : your debt disappears and they have no more legal claim over you, you get forced into trade balance because you are essentially bartering internationally.
With an -attempted- default : your debt doesn't immediately disappear, you get sued all across the earth, you get forced into a near trade halt while you play chicken with international bond holders and courts... a game of chicken you will never win entirely (Argentina) so you have to start running a trade surplus to pay off (part of) your debt for real. Or wise up and print some money.
They are not similar... only if there was an internationally recognized right for debt restructuring would default be a realistic option for the US. The US court system has actually been one of the foremost enemies of such rights, again just look at Argentina. Argentina was stupid enough to get into debt denominated in a currency not their own (just like the PIGS) and are suffering for it... the US has a much better option.
The problem with trying to default is that as long as you are reliant on international commerce (oil) the creditors have you by the balls, they don't have to let you... ask Argentina. Simply printing enough cash to pay off all the sovereign debt will disrupt internal markets, but at least it will let the US start over in the short term.
The capital market at the moment mostly floats on people spending other people's money... pension funds, large semi-public companies with large holdings they "need" to invest, that sort of thing. Sheep ready for "fleecing". In my own country building societies are collapsing left and right because banks bribed their management and board into making hugely leveraged interest rate swap bets... in Facebook's case it's less direct bribery, they just bought the media instead.
A fiasco? The whole financial industry basically got together to underwrite it, so they could all claim it was someone else's fault... and hell, it's going to work too. Anyone not expecting to get fleeced by the list of underwriters for Facebook is not going to learn shit from this...
The rich sell to people who have something of greater value to give back... that's why they are rich. For the majority of people that value is their ability to provide low educated labor, which of course only works when that is valuable. As soon as the value of labor deteriorates faster than technology and productivity can cut the price of products you have a problem... and a fundamental break with the past.
No matter how efficient government becomes the times are changing... the only libertarian future which won't end in a dystopian nightmare is geolibertarianism.
But not necessarily alternatives which will allow the same kind of consumption growth the past couple hundred years has allowed... that's the problem with extrapolating from the past, the parameters are changing. In the past worker productivity growth always allowed consumption growth, this will no longer be true (ignoring the "we will all be making a living off blogging, making films and TV shows" solution, which is just a cute way which smart libertarians who realise the problem try to bullshit themselves with). Worker productivity is still growing, consumption is not.
What if wages drop faster than the cost of goods produced can drop because of natural resource exhaustion? Who will be left around to consume all the output?
In the past we always had other industries with low educated jobs capable of absorbing these people... we had those industries because the moment labour became available technology AND abundant natural resources allowed their productive use. Technology lowered the cost of goods faster than productivity gains could lowered the cost of labour. We're running out of natural resources though... we are now entering a time where productivity gains lower the cost of labour faster than technology can lower the cost of goods though.
Or in other words, we could always increase consumption in the past... but we are now living in the time of peak fucking everything... times are changing.
Historically when this happens the military tends to decide it wants to be the rich people (doesn't matter how many of the top brass become rich people). Which is why robots have to take over there too.
Illegal pooling of power? I guess you can make anything illegal, but from say a Rothbardian natural rights point of view (I'm guessing you're a libertarian) there is absolutely nothing wrong with banding together in contract negotiations (unless there are pre-existing contractual promises not to do so). Nor even stipulating in those negotiations that all employees have to be union...
Now of course a lot of current employment law is not exactly Rothbardian, but that's an orthogonal issue.
Making Gate only work on outsiders which are extra-planar on the material plane is not going to change the core D&D feel... the classical use is to gate in high level Demons and Devils, which it would still be able to do. Allowing them to resist the control won't change the feel either.
Pathfinder DM'ing is basically like 3e DM'ing... a gigantic headache unless you just fudge everything and creating NPCs is a ton of work for something which might never impact the game whatsoever.
I'd never do it without a computer... Maptool is really useful even if you only use it to track initiative, status effects,creature abilities/cooldowns, HP etc.
Something similar to attacks of opportunity will almost certainly be back... attacks of opportunity were introduced in 3e because of the way turns were played got changed from AD&D, making disengaging too easy. Something which is as applicable to 5e as it was to 3e.
Pathfinder is for the most part a sideways step for 3.5. It fixed a couple things and did away with a whole lot of broken splat... but it didn't even fix all the major known flaws (gate is the same as it ever was for instance) and it's busy breaking casters with it's own broken splat already though, with the summoner and the bouncing/persistent metamagic rods for instance. Also it failed to learn the lessons from some of the later 3.5 splat such as Tome of Battle and Magic Item Compendium, both flawed books but with some really important improvements to the core game nonetheless. Magic item wise it basically regressed all the way to 3.5 core (almost everything sucks) and all martials get is more damage and a crit prox status effects and that's that, nothing like the flexibility of a ToB character.
Mostly Pathfinder is a wasted opportunity, of course not nearly as wasted as 4e.
Not as wasted as 5e will be either... Mearls STILL doesn't see the value in keeping some continuity in the game. There is no reason you can't build a decent game around at least having Vancian casters with most of the old spells, 9 levels of them, and a fireball which does d6 per CL for instance... it might not be as easy as just throwing everything old on the trash heap, but that's not the fucking point. Mearls hasn't acknowledged that his Grim Dark Points of Light bullshit shouldn't have been applied to all settings either... what he did to FR fractured the player's base as much as the new rules, and there was no good reason for that. He could simply have adapted World of Greyhawk and made it the default setting and leave FR well enough alone. The people who like the new FR would have liked that as well and the people who only liked the old FR wouldn't have been driven away.
Mearls has a gigantic ego and gigantic case of NIH.
PS. I don't even like the old Forgotten Realms, but I don't see that as a reason to bury it for those who do.
Hah, the New Deal... and which politician is going to do something like that again? Direct job creation is way too commie for the current democratic party, no dollar can be spend without it going through a private partner with no strings attached on actual jobs creation and which takes 99 cent on the dollar first.
The problem is that most of those jobs which can't be outsourced consists of peons working for peons...
In the end production creates wealth and owning, serving those who own, or directly or indirectly taking from those who own the means of production is the only way to acquire wealth. As labour gets more and more irrelevant to actual production more and more will have to be taken from those who own the means of production to maintain the current standard of living... ie. a complete reversal of neoliberalism (which has only allowed the standard of living to be maintained as it is funded by debt, debt someone expects to collect on at some point).
Slashdot Mirror
The Koran is the less important part of Islamic dogma (just like the Bible is for Catholicism and the Torah is for Judaism). It's all about the Hadith (and the Magisterium for Catholicism and Talmud for Judaism).
As for what the Hadith stand for ... well it ain't pretty.
Actually AUFS requires kernel patches, it's never been mainlined because the kernel maintainers like their own union mounts better ... even though they are far less useful (not write-through like AUFS, which is really nice for something like a file server) and forever undelivered. That said, I think Ubuntu and SUSE still come with AUFS patched in ... for Debian you have to compile your own patched kernel or use something like the Liquorix kernel.
Ditto, I refuse to buy any game with always online DRM for the single player part of the game for the moment (I'm so glad that prevented me from buying D3 BTW). When BG&E2 comes out I'll have to revalue that position, but for now Ubisoft is losing sales in my case.
I'd say Norway if you can swing it or Australia ... the former has oil, the latter just about everything else natural resource wise and a low population density to spread the wealth around. Something which both Norway and Australia are willing to do, without being afraid of taxing the hell out of natural resource profits to do it ... the Australian implementation of the supertax on mining shows a willingness to not let the country devolve into neo-feudalism.
I personally expect solar power and offline power storage breakthroughs in the near future, in which case Australia would become one of the most self sufficient first world nations in the world (the US has all the natural resources for this as well, but the class divide is going to get ugly there ... debt funding won't last forever, but raising taxation to sustainable levels is essentially impossible ... their population is too well indoctrinated, they're fucked, neo-feudalism ahoy).
New Zealand might seem to be in a similar position as Australia but IMO any country which manages a current account deficit with a trade surplus is run by traitors or idiots ...
If they don't have faith that you won't devalue again in the near future you can simply perform international trade in gold or whatever until confidence is restored. They don't need to want your currency or debt, only your goods. Of course you can't sustain a trade deficit any more, but that goes out the window either way.
With inflation : your debt disappears and they have no more legal claim over you, you get forced into trade balance because you are essentially bartering internationally.
With an -attempted- default : your debt doesn't immediately disappear, you get sued all across the earth, you get forced into a near trade halt while you play chicken with international bond holders and courts ... a game of chicken you will never win entirely (Argentina) so you have to start running a trade surplus to pay off (part of) your debt for real. Or wise up and print some money.
They are not similar ... only if there was an internationally recognized right for debt restructuring would default be a realistic option for the US. The US court system has actually been one of the foremost enemies of such rights, again just look at Argentina. Argentina was stupid enough to get into debt denominated in a currency not their own (just like the PIGS) and are suffering for it ... the US has a much better option.
There is a simple solution to that ... export controls.
If the rich want to leave you should only let them leave with one thing ... dollars. That's only if you want to be nice of course.
The problem with trying to default is that as long as you are reliant on international commerce (oil) the creditors have you by the balls, they don't have to let you ... ask Argentina. Simply printing enough cash to pay off all the sovereign debt will disrupt internal markets, but at least it will let the US start over in the short term.
XML is overengineered?
The capital market at the moment mostly floats on people spending other people's money ... pension funds, large semi-public companies with large holdings they "need" to invest, that sort of thing. Sheep ready for "fleecing". In my own country building societies are collapsing left and right because banks bribed their management and board into making hugely leveraged interest rate swap bets ... in Facebook's case it's less direct bribery, they just bought the media instead.
A fiasco? The whole financial industry basically got together to underwrite it, so they could all claim it was someone else's fault ... and hell, it's going to work too. Anyone not expecting to get fleeced by the list of underwriters for Facebook is not going to learn shit from this ...
The rich sell to people who have something of greater value to give back ... that's why they are rich. For the majority of people that value is their ability to provide low educated labor, which of course only works when that is valuable. As soon as the value of labor deteriorates faster than technology and productivity can cut the price of products you have a problem ... and a fundamental break with the past.
No matter how efficient government becomes the times are changing ... the only libertarian future which won't end in a dystopian nightmare is geolibertarianism.
"the market can come up with alternatives"
But not necessarily alternatives which will allow the same kind of consumption growth the past couple hundred years has allowed ... that's the problem with extrapolating from the past, the parameters are changing. In the past worker productivity growth always allowed consumption growth, this will no longer be true (ignoring the "we will all be making a living off blogging, making films and TV shows" solution, which is just a cute way which smart libertarians who realise the problem try to bullshit themselves with). Worker productivity is still growing, consumption is not.
What if wages drop faster than the cost of goods produced can drop because of natural resource exhaustion? Who will be left around to consume all the output?
In the past we always had other industries with low educated jobs capable of absorbing these people ... we had those industries because the moment labour became available technology AND abundant natural resources allowed their productive use. Technology lowered the cost of goods faster than productivity gains could lowered the cost of labour. We're running out of natural resources though ... we are now entering a time where productivity gains lower the cost of labour faster than technology can lower the cost of goods though.
Or in other words, we could always increase consumption in the past ... but we are now living in the time of peak fucking everything ... times are changing.
Historically when this happens the military tends to decide it wants to be the rich people (doesn't matter how many of the top brass become rich people). Which is why robots have to take over there too.
Illegal pooling of power? I guess you can make anything illegal, but from say a Rothbardian natural rights point of view (I'm guessing you're a libertarian) there is absolutely nothing wrong with banding together in contract negotiations (unless there are pre-existing contractual promises not to do so). Nor even stipulating in those negotiations that all employees have to be union ...
Now of course a lot of current employment law is not exactly Rothbardian, but that's an orthogonal issue.
Making Gate only work on outsiders which are extra-planar on the material plane is not going to change the core D&D feel ... the classical use is to gate in high level Demons and Devils, which it would still be able to do. Allowing them to resist the control won't change the feel either.
There is no excuse not to fix gate ...
3.5 is broken ... but refactoring is better than rewriting when recognizing the code itself is important to the users.
Pathfinder DM'ing is basically like 3e DM'ing ... a gigantic headache unless you just fudge everything and creating NPCs is a ton of work for something which might never impact the game whatsoever.
I'd never do it without a computer ... Maptool is really useful even if you only use it to track initiative, status effects,creature abilities/cooldowns, HP etc.
Something similar to attacks of opportunity will almost certainly be back ... attacks of opportunity were introduced in 3e because of the way turns were played got changed from AD&D, making disengaging too easy. Something which is as applicable to 5e as it was to 3e.
4e ... quickly moving games ...
Pathfinder is for the most part a sideways step for 3.5. It fixed a couple things and did away with a whole lot of broken splat ... but it didn't even fix all the major known flaws (gate is the same as it ever was for instance) and it's busy breaking casters with it's own broken splat already though, with the summoner and the bouncing/persistent metamagic rods for instance. Also it failed to learn the lessons from some of the later 3.5 splat such as Tome of Battle and Magic Item Compendium, both flawed books but with some really important improvements to the core game nonetheless. Magic item wise it basically regressed all the way to 3.5 core (almost everything sucks) and all martials get is more damage and a crit prox status effects and that's that, nothing like the flexibility of a ToB character.
Mostly Pathfinder is a wasted opportunity, of course not nearly as wasted as 4e.
Not as wasted as 5e will be either ... Mearls STILL doesn't see the value in keeping some continuity in the game. There is no reason you can't build a decent game around at least having Vancian casters with most of the old spells, 9 levels of them, and a fireball which does d6 per CL for instance ... it might not be as easy as just throwing everything old on the trash heap, but that's not the fucking point. Mearls hasn't acknowledged that his Grim Dark Points of Light bullshit shouldn't have been applied to all settings either ... what he did to FR fractured the player's base as much as the new rules, and there was no good reason for that. He could simply have adapted World of Greyhawk and made it the default setting and leave FR well enough alone. The people who like the new FR would have liked that as well and the people who only liked the old FR wouldn't have been driven away.
Mearls has a gigantic ego and gigantic case of NIH.
PS. I don't even like the old Forgotten Realms, but I don't see that as a reason to bury it for those who do.
Goldman Sachs will go bankrupt, all the major banks will ... they are just stepping stones.
What use is Wolfram and Hart when you have achieved hell on earth?
Hah, the New Deal ... and which politician is going to do something like that again? Direct job creation is way too commie for the current democratic party, no dollar can be spend without it going through a private partner with no strings attached on actual jobs creation and which takes 99 cent on the dollar first.
The time of FDR and JFK are long gone.
The problem is that most of those jobs which can't be outsourced consists of peons working for peons ...
In the end production creates wealth and owning, serving those who own, or directly or indirectly taking from those who own the means of production is the only way to acquire wealth. As labour gets more and more irrelevant to actual production more and more will have to be taken from those who own the means of production to maintain the current standard of living ... ie. a complete reversal of neoliberalism (which has only allowed the standard of living to be maintained as it is funded by debt, debt someone expects to collect on at some point).