Think about this for a moment. Suppose its successful and many people hand over $5/month. Thats great they got some new revenue, but even less mail then needs to be delivered, so the downsizing continues at an even faster pace.
The reality is that fewer and fewer people use the snail, and downsizing is an inevitable and rational result if we care at all about efficiency. If the bulk mail service is being offered at or above cost, then there is no reason to terminate the service other than the hate for junk mail in your box. Thats a separate issue and certainly has merit, but if we are to discuss that issue we need to realize that even more jobs will be lost in the process.
Both binary and decimal-in-the-ascii-format should actually have about the same entropy. I realize that zip wont do as good job on the later format, but plenty of higher order entropy compressors would see them as nearly equivalent.
To be a little more clear about this, primality proving algorithms are generally constructed to produce a certificate that makes it easy to verify that the algorithm was indeed executed completely and indeed proved primality, and these certificates themselves are as difficult to forge as the proof itself.
None of your premises have merit because they presume all other things being equal, yet in a Libertarian-run country all the other things would not be equal. The banks wouldn't exist as they do, the medical industry wouldn't exist as it does, the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't exist as it has, and you the free person would have been making different choices all this time.
The years leading up to 1929 wasn't a libertarian paradise like you claim, and the real problem that existed still exists. There can still be runs on banks, and they will still run out of reserves before every depositor is paid. Regulation hasn't solved the problem, on the contrary regulation has legitimized some of the behaviors that create the very problem you are complaining about.
While QB was at version 4.5, BASCOM PDS was at version 7.x.
QB was in fact a DOS-limited version of the PDS environment, which ran on both DOS and OS/2 1.0 and would produce protected mode executables in the later case.
What are you insuring against with the "mostly cheap" style coverage?
You insure your home against fire and water damage, but you don't insure it against a broken floor tile, chipped paint, a stained carpet, and other "mostly cheap" stuff.
See, insurance is supposed to be about insuring against rare eventualities that you are not prepared to handle should they happen to you. If the eventuality is not rare, or if the eventuality is common but inexpensive, then why have any middle man at all in the transaction?
Now you understand the fight against national health insurance in America. Crazy, right?
They wanted insurance to cover routine activities, as if forcing a middle man into the equation is ever a good idea in those cases.
I tried to explain how insane the idea was using a car analogy, where they bought secondary insurance on their car to cover oil changes. Instead of paying $20 per oil change several times a year, I suggested that they pay $8 per month on oil change insurance that covers them for up to 4 changes per year. Of course they wouldnt buy my oil change insurance, but somehow they felt that routine dental work (scheduled cleanings!) should be covered by their health insurance.
That would explode the interest rate on loans, absolutely cratering real estate prices.
While I disagree with the idea of creating inflation as a 'solution' -- what you are saying isnt justification for not doing it. Existing homes are still highly overvalued.
Even worse unless you simply give up on the debt, as the short term notes come due, you need to refinance at the new 20% interest rate, which means the fedgov implodes once interest payments exceed any theoretically possible revenue.
If the federal government wanted to create inflation, then it would have to forcibly print new money above and beyond what the demand for money dictates is necessary to avoid deflation. Interest rates end up low because there arent enough available alternatives to satisfy the demand for a place to invest.
This is in fact the problem with inflation in a nutshell. People are given a disincentive to save money, but the good opportunities to loan money don't grow as a response, and the result is that the supply of loaners goes up and thus the price for loans goes down. It is when the money supply is tight that interest rates are propelled upwards.
Sounds more like you just want plan A with a different provider. Plan B involves actually changing the conditions that put you where you are, which you apparently arent in favor of since you are in favor of this "free" public wifi shit.
I'm delusional or I just happen to be the monkey that's flipping heads 20 times straight in a row.
Its because these studies are cherry picked all the way through.. they dont select investors randomly.. they select "top performers" which in their interpretation equates to "extreme risk takers" -- they dont select the guys that have brought in 8%/year average over 20 years.. they select the guy that brought in 150%/year over 2 years.
Why are they picking on Australia, alone? The same can be said for Britain, the US, the EU - didn't we recently have a big banking collapse, with repercussions felt round the world?
But there were economists that publicly predicted the burst of the housing bubble and resulting banking collapse... these economists just didnt work for banks because, surprise, banks weren't interested in that sort of information being made public and certainly werent interested in acting in a responsible manner regarding it. The banks certainly werent the ones to get the short end of the stick in the end.
These predictions werent in a single camp either. Both major schools of thought, the Austrians and Keynesians, were predicting it. The thing to keep in mind is that while the Austrians and Keynesians disagree on quite a few abstract things, that there are still fundamental economic premises that they all agree on.
The correct observation is not that it wasn't predicted.. its that so few even in the private sector paid any attention to the predictions.
Its no surprise that the American government didnt pay any attention, even though some members of the government were trying for years to do something about it. Too many in the government are corruptively self-interested -- trading legislation for donations and support -- for there to have been something meaningful done about it. Members of government such as Barney Frank (among many many others in both Republican and Democrat parties) absolutely denied that a housing bubble existed when opposing legislation to do something about it.
One poster on slashdot suggested that those from the Austrian school stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you" but in actuality it was the government and banks that did that, not economists from any school.
given how retarded politics is here, I can only conclude that we are, indeed, The Lucky Country.
Nah, this is simply the effect of mobilizing massive amounts of natural resources (the mining.) This is the same basic thing that kept the soviet union up for so long, of course in that case it was state sponsored but the how and why isnt really relevant to the effect.
The problem is that you are just exporting most of the resources. You are getting some instant cash now, but you arent creating any value at all. This is similar to a company that is in trouble selling all its inventory at cost in order to get some much needed operating capital.
Do I want a smart phone? Sure. Do I need one? No. If I get one do I have to sign a contract? No. Therefore its a choice to sign a contract, its even a choice whether or not to buy a smart phone. This isnt a necessity of life we are talking about here. We are talking about choices and being man enough to accept the responsibilities involved in making them.
If something costs more than you think its worth, then don't buy it. Duh.
You cannot negotiate the contract. If you don't like it, you're stuck with an old phone
....by 'stuck with an old phone' do you mean 'having not signed an unfavorable contract' ???
Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that you have some sort of 'right' to a smart phone, and that this leads to the idea that because nobody (that you can find) wants to sell you one at a price that makes you both happy that its 'not fair' and further, that you shouldn't be responsible for choosing to make a purchase that you inevitably werent going to be happy with.
Bullshit. You don't have to partake. Nobody is making you sign a shitty contract. Its called a choice when you voluntarily sign a contract.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) betting lines arent set based on the games likely outcome but instead are set based on public perception of the games likely outcome. The goal of the the betting line is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each team, and if successful the bookie walks away with 10% of the action because the winning wagers only get paid $10 on their $11 wager.
This guy signed a contract and some of the terms of that contract allow the company to do these sorts of things (if not, then he clearly and trivially wins in any small claims court.) Is the act of doing these things the 'wrong' part, or is the 'wrong' part that this guy signed a contract that put him in such a bind?
I know better than to sign unfavorable contracts, and in fact a contract has to be obviously very favorable before I would decide to sign one without a lawyer representing me because contracts are serious business that shouldn't be signed so lightly. I don't know when exactly it was that people en-mass decided to sign contracts so willy-nilly, but it happened at some point and I can only conclude that many people are just stupidly chasing their dancing-bunny pocket toys without regard for any common sense that older generations seem to have.
Seriously people.. contracts are serious business. Don't cry when you find out that the contract you signed is ugly.. it was ugly before you signed it.
It's so new, nobody has anything that would benefit yet.
I think more than a few people have ideas... here is one: a chip that can switch between AMD64 and ARMv8 instruction sets, even supporting both simultaneously...
I think the reality is that no big chip manufacturer wants such a thing to exist.. how is ARM going to get its licensing fee if you can just download the instruction set from the pirate bay?
Slashdot Mirror
Think about this for a moment. Suppose its successful and many people hand over $5/month. Thats great they got some new revenue, but even less mail then needs to be delivered, so the downsizing continues at an even faster pace.
The reality is that fewer and fewer people use the snail, and downsizing is an inevitable and rational result if we care at all about efficiency. If the bulk mail service is being offered at or above cost, then there is no reason to terminate the service other than the hate for junk mail in your box. Thats a separate issue and certainly has merit, but if we are to discuss that issue we need to realize that even more jobs will be lost in the process.
Yes, and the folks on slashdot are really big on opt-out instead of opt-in...
..oh wait.. no they fucking arent. The folks on slashdot fucking hate opt-out, and rightly fucking so.
Well, its now trivial to construct a PRNG with a period of 2^57885161-1. It will be pretty slow though.
Both binary and decimal-in-the-ascii-format should actually have about the same entropy. I realize that zip wont do as good job on the later format, but plenty of higher order entropy compressors would see them as nearly equivalent.
What I'm curious of is to what certainty is this proven prime?
Absolutely 100% certain.
To be a little more clear about this, primality proving algorithms are generally constructed to produce a certificate that makes it easy to verify that the algorithm was indeed executed completely and indeed proved primality, and these certificates themselves are as difficult to forge as the proof itself.
None of your premises have merit because they presume all other things being equal, yet in a Libertarian-run country all the other things would not be equal. The banks wouldn't exist as they do, the medical industry wouldn't exist as it does, the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't exist as it has, and you the free person would have been making different choices all this time.
The years leading up to 1929 wasn't a libertarian paradise like you claim, and the real problem that existed still exists. There can still be runs on banks, and they will still run out of reserves before every depositor is paid. Regulation hasn't solved the problem, on the contrary regulation has legitimized some of the behaviors that create the very problem you are complaining about.
While QB was at version 4.5, BASCOM PDS was at version 7.x.
QB was in fact a DOS-limited version of the PDS environment, which ran on both DOS and OS/2 1.0 and would produce protected mode executables in the later case.
What are you insuring against with the "mostly cheap" style coverage?
You insure your home against fire and water damage, but you don't insure it against a broken floor tile, chipped paint, a stained carpet, and other "mostly cheap" stuff.
See, insurance is supposed to be about insuring against rare eventualities that you are not prepared to handle should they happen to you. If the eventuality is not rare, or if the eventuality is common but inexpensive, then why have any middle man at all in the transaction?
Now you understand the fight against national health insurance in America. Crazy, right?
They wanted insurance to cover routine activities, as if forcing a middle man into the equation is ever a good idea in those cases.
I tried to explain how insane the idea was using a car analogy, where they bought secondary insurance on their car to cover oil changes. Instead of paying $20 per oil change several times a year, I suggested that they pay $8 per month on oil change insurance that covers them for up to 4 changes per year. Of course they wouldnt buy my oil change insurance, but somehow they felt that routine dental work (scheduled cleanings!) should be covered by their health insurance.
Americans have come to be extremely stupid.
That would explode the interest rate on loans, absolutely cratering real estate prices.
While I disagree with the idea of creating inflation as a 'solution' -- what you are saying isnt justification for not doing it. Existing homes are still highly overvalued.
Even worse unless you simply give up on the debt, as the short term notes come due, you need to refinance at the new 20% interest rate, which means the fedgov implodes once interest payments exceed any theoretically possible revenue.
If the federal government wanted to create inflation, then it would have to forcibly print new money above and beyond what the demand for money dictates is necessary to avoid deflation. Interest rates end up low because there arent enough available alternatives to satisfy the demand for a place to invest.
This is in fact the problem with inflation in a nutshell. People are given a disincentive to save money, but the good opportunities to loan money don't grow as a response, and the result is that the supply of loaners goes up and thus the price for loans goes down. It is when the money supply is tight that interest rates are propelled upwards.
..because the people the benefited from the consolidation told him so.
Sounds more like you just want plan A with a different provider. Plan B involves actually changing the conditions that put you where you are, which you apparently arent in favor of since you are in favor of this "free" public wifi shit.
Exactly.
I hope you don't think that the government is legally accountable...
I am reminded of the old encyclopedia marketing model.
Sell the first N pages for $0.01 per page or whatever, but the last chapter is $2.00 per page.
Exactly. It isnt that economists that couldn't predict it, its that economists working for banks and governments wouldn't admit it.
I'm delusional or I just happen to be the monkey that's flipping heads 20 times straight in a row.
Its because these studies are cherry picked all the way through.. they dont select investors randomly.. they select "top performers" which in their interpretation equates to "extreme risk takers" -- they dont select the guys that have brought in 8%/year average over 20 years.. they select the guy that brought in 150%/year over 2 years.
Why are they picking on Australia, alone? The same can be said for Britain, the US, the EU - didn't we recently have a big banking collapse, with repercussions felt round the world?
But there were economists that publicly predicted the burst of the housing bubble and resulting banking collapse... these economists just didnt work for banks because, surprise, banks weren't interested in that sort of information being made public and certainly werent interested in acting in a responsible manner regarding it. The banks certainly werent the ones to get the short end of the stick in the end.
These predictions werent in a single camp either. Both major schools of thought, the Austrians and Keynesians, were predicting it. The thing to keep in mind is that while the Austrians and Keynesians disagree on quite a few abstract things, that there are still fundamental economic premises that they all agree on.
The correct observation is not that it wasn't predicted.. its that so few even in the private sector paid any attention to the predictions.
Its no surprise that the American government didnt pay any attention, even though some members of the government were trying for years to do something about it. Too many in the government are corruptively self-interested -- trading legislation for donations and support -- for there to have been something meaningful done about it. Members of government such as Barney Frank (among many many others in both Republican and Democrat parties) absolutely denied that a housing bubble existed when opposing legislation to do something about it.
One poster on slashdot suggested that those from the Austrian school stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you" but in actuality it was the government and banks that did that, not economists from any school.
given how retarded politics is here, I can only conclude that we are, indeed, The Lucky Country.
Nah, this is simply the effect of mobilizing massive amounts of natural resources (the mining.) This is the same basic thing that kept the soviet union up for so long, of course in that case it was state sponsored but the how and why isnt really relevant to the effect.
The problem is that you are just exporting most of the resources. You are getting some instant cash now, but you arent creating any value at all. This is similar to a company that is in trouble selling all its inventory at cost in order to get some much needed operating capital.
Leave it. Duh.
Do I want a smart phone? Sure. Do I need one? No. If I get one do I have to sign a contract? No. Therefore its a choice to sign a contract, its even a choice whether or not to buy a smart phone. This isnt a necessity of life we are talking about here. We are talking about choices and being man enough to accept the responsibilities involved in making them.
If something costs more than you think its worth, then don't buy it. Duh.
You cannot negotiate the contract. If you don't like it, you're stuck with an old phone
Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that you have some sort of 'right' to a smart phone, and that this leads to the idea that because nobody (that you can find) wants to sell you one at a price that makes you both happy that its 'not fair' and further, that you shouldn't be responsible for choosing to make a purchase that you inevitably werent going to be happy with.
Bullshit. You don't have to partake. Nobody is making you sign a shitty contract. Its called a choice when you voluntarily sign a contract.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) betting lines arent set based on the games likely outcome but instead are set based on public perception of the games likely outcome. The goal of the the betting line is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each team, and if successful the bookie walks away with 10% of the action because the winning wagers only get paid $10 on their $11 wager.
The title and summary don't tell the whole story.
This guy signed a contract and some of the terms of that contract allow the company to do these sorts of things (if not, then he clearly and trivially wins in any small claims court.) Is the act of doing these things the 'wrong' part, or is the 'wrong' part that this guy signed a contract that put him in such a bind?
I know better than to sign unfavorable contracts, and in fact a contract has to be obviously very favorable before I would decide to sign one without a lawyer representing me because contracts are serious business that shouldn't be signed so lightly. I don't know when exactly it was that people en-mass decided to sign contracts so willy-nilly, but it happened at some point and I can only conclude that many people are just stupidly chasing their dancing-bunny pocket toys without regard for any common sense that older generations seem to have.
Seriously people.. contracts are serious business. Don't cry when you find out that the contract you signed is ugly.. it was ugly before you signed it.
It's so new, nobody has anything that would benefit yet.
I think more than a few people have ideas... here is one: a chip that can switch between AMD64 and ARMv8 instruction sets, even supporting both simultaneously...
I think the reality is that no big chip manufacturer wants such a thing to exist.. how is ARM going to get its licensing fee if you can just download the instruction set from the pirate bay?