Bitcoin has nothing on an established currency, like the US dollar, in the 'enabler of all sorts of messed up scams' department, the biggest one, of-course being the fact that the US government (through the Fed) conjures up the infamous USD out of thin air (or out of a computer adding program).
The USD is directly or indirectly responsible for the US economic catastrophe (the one that's coming and all the previous ones since 1917, when the Fed was allowed to monetise US Treasury debt by the Congress).
So saying that the government in fact must be allowed to regulate currency in order to prevent fraud and other 'messed up scams' and various activities that are less than crystal clear and honest, is at best extremely naive.
In reality of-course people decide what money is and before government comes up with a paper money scam, people saw precious metals as money. Precious metals are still money, though government sets all kinds of barriers to prevent people from using the metals as money by taxing, get this, 'capital appreciation' or taxing rising USD value of metals as income though in reality of-course, the amount of the metal that is in possession doesn't change over the time that it takes government to print yet another bajilion dollars.
Government fighting scams? Ha! You miss the entire point - government IS the scam.
- yeah, it means that people are 100% slaves and they are only allowed to do what is 'legal' and everything else is deemed illegal to do.
It's amazing what you can do to a population and how rich and powerful you can be personally once they are only allowed to walk in lockstep on a predetermined path.
Nice business idea you have got there, it would be a shame if something bad would all of a sudden happened to it, out of the blue.
The government Mafia wants its piece of the pie, so there will be regulations threatened, there will be actual regulations, the regulations will establish the monopolies that will be allowed to participate in this new business idea, the rest will be locked out and the remaining monopolies (oligopolies if you like) will pay their dues to the Mafia bosses.
Investment bankers and stockbrokers in a market that is not infected by the politicians are only as valuable to the society as it validates their activities.
The American Dream was not about a car or a house. Housing lobby (mortgage bankers, builders), hijacked the term to mean something that it does not.
American Dream first of all and above all means INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
That's all it is, people came to America for individual freedom, freedom from oppression of powerful governments. America used to promise people something they have not had before: equality before law and ability to get ahead not because of nobility but because of your own labour, your own ideas, your own perseverance.
American Dream is not owning a car or a house, it is owning yourself, owning your own property and not being stolen from by nobility.
Unfortunately USA is back to the concept of nobility being above the rest and complete discrimination against the individual and lack of rule of law, so USA is partially socialist, partially fascist, either way it is collectivist, centrally planned and ruled by the new type of 'nobles', it's not about equality under the law, it's not about the individual. The individual is being stepped on by the oppression of the huge collective government and the mob that the government uses to stay in power, and the government does so by sacrificing the individual and his or her freedoms.
Of-course that is the best outcome we can hope for, that everybody is out of work because everything we all need at any time in our lives is produced by mechanisms somehow.
Until that blissful moment arrives, people will have to work to satisfy their own demands as well as demands of others.
as far as the king is concerned, the concept of Rule of Law essentially means: I rule, you follow the law.
- no, what it means is: I am the king, whatever I say the law is in any situation is the law.
That's much WORSE than: I rule, you follow the law. When a person rules but the laws are clear and are not changing all the time at the whim of the ruler, you may in fact end up with a very well working system.
The problem starts when the law is changed at any time for whatever reason that the king wants OR if it is a democracy, the law is changed at any time that the system dictates and there are no standards, there is no anchoring (if the Constitution, the main law is not followed).
Actually there is another possibility here, especially given the recent revelations about what Western governments do on daily basis to anybody, they can get their dirty little hands on (I am talking about NSA, etc.)
Maybe the real issue is that ThinkPad brand doesn't have back doors that Western governments can use to break into those machines and that's the real issue for governments, such as Australia, the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand?
Higher utilisation does not necessarily mean higher revenue, however it is true, usage expands to all available resources. Give people ability to use something in a cheaper or faster or easier way and they will use more of it, same is true for every complex system. Make space available and something will occupy it, that's basically thermodynamics and entropy in action.
Mailing, shipping companies should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their postages, etc., of-course USPS is not a company, they are the government and will eventually die off as a species and the sooner the better.
The team proposes that with the right training, it could be possible to help psychopaths activate their 'empathy switch', which could bring them a step closer to rehabilitation
- so they are trying to fix something that is not broken... sounds like various treatments for many other non-issues.
A lie upon a lie. Clinton never 'balanced the budget'. Every single year under Clinton, the debt increased from the previous year to the next, the budget wasn't balanced, Clinton and Rubin refinanced the government debt with short term mortgages and piled the deficits onto that credit card.
Democrats want to grow the government for their purposes and Republicans want to grow the government for theirs. The correct answer of-course is to take away whatever toys that Democrats want to pay for and whatever toys that Republicans want to pay for, shut down the Federal reserve, IRS, DHS, FBI, FDIC, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, FDA, departments of energy, education, commerce, interior, agriculture, all the subsidies, etc. That's the actual way to allow the economy to restructure and restart - shut down over 90% of government and cut taxes by 90%, but that must correspond with cutting spending by 90%, so all the wars must stop, military must be cut by 90% and all of the above mentioned departments must be cut by 100%.
Government workers need to be dismissed, USPS can be shut down, roads, bridges, sewer systems, schools, medical care and insurance, food, energy, education, etc.etc., none of it should be handled by government at all. USA used to be a country that actually understood free market capitalism and profited from that, growing at the fastest rate possible in 19th century, today it's just a militarised zone with very little productivity happening.
- yeah, we know, your country and it looks like most others think that "unreported employment" is a bad idea because government goons can't get their cut. So from their perspective it's better to have "reported unemployment" than "unreported employment". As for you being a communist, do you mean a complete Marxist? So when are you going to abolish the State?
Funny nonsense your comment is. Free market capitalism questions corporations and businesses all the time, that's the exact opposite of collectivist socialist agenda that you are promoting, where the select elite decide for everybody what is right and wrong, what business is good and what is bad, etc., where you are actually not allowed to question those choices in any meaningful way.
Free market capitalism questions choices all the time, you have freedom not to deal with people you don't like, but that's what you are against, obviously - individual choices of free people.
Karl Marx version of communism will save us? For more than a century it has been used to murder a large number of 'us', regardless of which 'version', it all comes down to destroying individual freedoms and promoting collectivism of one form or another, I am completely against collectivism of any kind, so obviously you'll have to shoot me, because I am (and many others like me) a stone wall on your way to "Karl Marx communism".
Since you'll have to commit murder (yet again for that same ideology) then you are not actually 'saving us', 'us' being people that do not agree with you, so then what incentive do we have to care about what you say or want or work with you in any way shape or form? 0 incentive.
I switched to duckduckgo from google, it's a tiny, irrelevant (in the big schema of things) example, but understand that I used google exclusively for over a decade now and it took overcoming a serious mental block to do that and I did it anyway.
Your nick serves you well over the years and it still does.
"hunting an innocent child" - loaded sentence, each word there is subject to scrutiny and does not withstand against it.
Trayvon was not a child. Trayvon was not innocent, he liked fighting, he fought plenty, mostly won and even his friends told him he needed to stop. He dealt stolen property, was working with his father, known in the gang circles as "Fruit" to purchase and resell illegal firearms. Zimmerman did not "start" violence, he called the police, Martin did start violence, he attacked Zimmerman. "Hunting" is the type of language that the prosecution used, as if Zimmerman was 'hunting' Trayvon with his gun out, or some such nonsense.
Of-course we know it's complete bullshit from every perspective, a person doesn't turn around and attack somebody who has a gun, if the gun is in the hands and visible, a person with a gun does not allow his 'prey' to attack him close up, he shoots from distance, distance is his friend. A person with a gun does not attack somebody to go into a fist fight that he may lose and lose the gun to the opponent that can be used to kill the original gun owner.
Self defence is in fact the case here and it was the case from the start, the jury saw this clearly and Zimmerman is not guilty of anything because it was self defence. Same with the cop who originally refused to file charges of murder against Zimmerman (and was fired for that so that a political prosecutor could be brought into the case).
Self defence starts the moment you are attacked and believe your life and or health is in danger, at that point whatever you do is self defence and it's legal and must always stay that way.
He knows because it is the most logical obvious thing in the world. If you have a gun and you are not an expert fighter, distance is your friend and getting too close to the person you may want to attack is the opposite of what you want to do unless you have a death wish, because that person may grab the gun and shoot you instead.
Centralisation within any particular individual organisation that is not a government is not socialism or communism of fascism or even collectivism of any kind, after all, any business exists to make money for the INVESTORS, there is no other objective than making money for the investors, so that's the goal.
A government should in principle exist only to protect individual freedoms of people rather than divide them into groups and nominate some of the groups for entitlements that must be provided by some other groups as obligations, rather than dictate any form of central planning, etc.
However when you have government that is so deeply into planning the economy centrally, it sets all the rules and regulations for businesses, it taxes businesses and individuals, it creates money and it pretends to regulate the economy for the expressed benefit of it, well, then you have what USA has today, and it's ugly and it's economically destructive.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin has nothing on an established currency, like the US dollar, in the 'enabler of all sorts of messed up scams' department, the biggest one, of-course being the fact that the US government (through the Fed) conjures up the infamous USD out of thin air (or out of a computer adding program).
The USD is directly or indirectly responsible for the US economic catastrophe (the one that's coming and all the previous ones since 1917, when the Fed was allowed to monetise US Treasury debt by the Congress).
So saying that the government in fact must be allowed to regulate currency in order to prevent fraud and other 'messed up scams' and various activities that are less than crystal clear and honest, is at best extremely naive.
In reality of-course people decide what money is and before government comes up with a paper money scam, people saw precious metals as money. Precious metals are still money, though government sets all kinds of barriers to prevent people from using the metals as money by taxing, get this, 'capital appreciation' or taxing rising USD value of metals as income though in reality of-course, the amount of the metal that is in possession doesn't change over the time that it takes government to print yet another bajilion dollars.
Government fighting scams? Ha! You miss the entire point - government IS the scam.
Think about that for a moment.
- yeah, it means that people are 100% slaves and they are only allowed to do what is 'legal' and everything else is deemed illegal to do.
It's amazing what you can do to a population and how rich and powerful you can be personally once they are only allowed to walk in lockstep on a predetermined path.
Nice business idea you have got there, it would be a shame if something bad would all of a sudden happened to it, out of the blue.
The government Mafia wants its piece of the pie, so there will be regulations threatened, there will be actual regulations, the regulations will establish the monopolies that will be allowed to participate in this new business idea, the rest will be locked out and the remaining monopolies (oligopolies if you like) will pay their dues to the Mafia bosses.
No, politicians are.
Investment bankers and stockbrokers in a market that is not infected by the politicians are only as valuable to the society as it validates their activities.
So do you realise that Garry Johnson was most likely on the ballot where you have voted?
I, on the other hand, am concerned about inconsistent flushing of the input streams and core dumps.
The American Dream was not about a car or a house. Housing lobby (mortgage bankers, builders), hijacked the term to mean something that it does not.
American Dream first of all and above all means INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
That's all it is, people came to America for individual freedom, freedom from oppression of powerful governments. America used to promise people something they have not had before: equality before law and ability to get ahead not because of nobility but because of your own labour, your own ideas, your own perseverance.
American Dream is not owning a car or a house, it is owning yourself, owning your own property and not being stolen from by nobility.
Unfortunately USA is back to the concept of nobility being above the rest and complete discrimination against the individual and lack of rule of law, so USA is partially socialist, partially fascist, either way it is collectivist, centrally planned and ruled by the new type of 'nobles', it's not about equality under the law, it's not about the individual. The individual is being stepped on by the oppression of the huge collective government and the mob that the government uses to stay in power, and the government does so by sacrificing the individual and his or her freedoms.
Of-course that is the best outcome we can hope for, that everybody is out of work because everything we all need at any time in our lives is produced by mechanisms somehow.
Until that blissful moment arrives, people will have to work to satisfy their own demands as well as demands of others.
as far as the king is concerned, the concept of Rule of Law essentially means: I rule, you follow the law.
- no, what it means is: I am the king, whatever I say the law is in any situation is the law.
That's much WORSE than: I rule, you follow the law. When a person rules but the laws are clear and are not changing all the time at the whim of the ruler, you may in fact end up with a very well working system.
The problem starts when the law is changed at any time for whatever reason that the king wants OR if it is a democracy, the law is changed at any time that the system dictates and there are no standards, there is no anchoring (if the Constitution, the main law is not followed).
Proper borscht is made with vodka. Also you add vodka to it and then use vodka for desert.
Actually there is another possibility here, especially given the recent revelations about what Western governments do on daily basis to anybody, they can get their dirty little hands on (I am talking about NSA, etc.)
Maybe the real issue is that ThinkPad brand doesn't have back doors that Western governments can use to break into those machines and that's the real issue for governments, such as Australia, the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand?
Higher utilisation does not necessarily mean higher revenue, however it is true, usage expands to all available resources. Give people ability to use something in a cheaper or faster or easier way and they will use more of it, same is true for every complex system. Make space available and something will occupy it, that's basically thermodynamics and entropy in action.
Mailing, shipping companies should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their postages, etc., of-course USPS is not a company, they are the government and will eventually die off as a species and the sooner the better.
A Pole just cockblocked a cocky cockblocker.
The team proposes that with the right training, it could be possible to help psychopaths activate their 'empathy switch', which could bring them a step closer to rehabilitation
- so they are trying to fix something that is not broken... sounds like various treatments for many other non-issues.
A lie upon a lie. Clinton never 'balanced the budget'. Every single year under Clinton, the debt increased from the previous year to the next, the budget wasn't balanced, Clinton and Rubin refinanced the government debt with short term mortgages and piled the deficits onto that credit card.
Democrats want to grow the government for their purposes and Republicans want to grow the government for theirs. The correct answer of-course is to take away whatever toys that Democrats want to pay for and whatever toys that Republicans want to pay for, shut down the Federal reserve, IRS, DHS, FBI, FDIC, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, FDA, departments of energy, education, commerce, interior, agriculture, all the subsidies, etc. That's the actual way to allow the economy to restructure and restart - shut down over 90% of government and cut taxes by 90%, but that must correspond with cutting spending by 90%, so all the wars must stop, military must be cut by 90% and all of the above mentioned departments must be cut by 100%.
Government workers need to be dismissed, USPS can be shut down, roads, bridges, sewer systems, schools, medical care and insurance, food, energy, education, etc.etc., none of it should be handled by government at all. USA used to be a country that actually understood free market capitalism and profited from that, growing at the fastest rate possible in 19th century, today it's just a militarised zone with very little productivity happening.
If you see a spoon on a picture, you can expect to see other objects commonly found in kitchens and restaurants or... there is no spoon.
unreported employment is a bad idea
- yeah, we know, your country and it looks like most others think that "unreported employment" is a bad idea because government goons can't get their cut. So from their perspective it's better to have "reported unemployment" than "unreported employment". As for you being a communist, do you mean a complete Marxist? So when are you going to abolish the State?
Funny nonsense your comment is. Free market capitalism questions corporations and businesses all the time, that's the exact opposite of collectivist socialist agenda that you are promoting, where the select elite decide for everybody what is right and wrong, what business is good and what is bad, etc., where you are actually not allowed to question those choices in any meaningful way.
Free market capitalism questions choices all the time, you have freedom not to deal with people you don't like, but that's what you are against, obviously - individual choices of free people.
Karl Marx version of communism will save us? For more than a century it has been used to murder a large number of 'us', regardless of which 'version', it all comes down to destroying individual freedoms and promoting collectivism of one form or another, I am completely against collectivism of any kind, so obviously you'll have to shoot me, because I am (and many others like me) a stone wall on your way to "Karl Marx communism".
Since you'll have to commit murder (yet again for that same ideology) then you are not actually 'saving us', 'us' being people that do not agree with you, so then what incentive do we have to care about what you say or want or work with you in any way shape or form? 0 incentive.
That's best American poetry I have ever heard.
I switched to duckduckgo from google, it's a tiny, irrelevant (in the big schema of things) example, but understand that I used google exclusively for over a decade now and it took overcoming a serious mental block to do that and I did it anyway.
Your nick serves you well over the years and it still does.
"hunting an innocent child" - loaded sentence, each word there is subject to scrutiny and does not withstand against it.
Trayvon was not a child.
Trayvon was not innocent, he liked fighting, he fought plenty, mostly won and even his friends told him he needed to stop. He dealt stolen property, was working with his father, known in the gang circles as "Fruit" to purchase and resell illegal firearms.
Zimmerman did not "start" violence, he called the police, Martin did start violence, he attacked Zimmerman.
"Hunting" is the type of language that the prosecution used, as if Zimmerman was 'hunting' Trayvon with his gun out, or some such nonsense.
Of-course we know it's complete bullshit from every perspective, a person doesn't turn around and attack somebody who has a gun, if the gun is in the hands and visible, a person with a gun does not allow his 'prey' to attack him close up, he shoots from distance, distance is his friend. A person with a gun does not attack somebody to go into a fist fight that he may lose and lose the gun to the opponent that can be used to kill the original gun owner.
Self defence is in fact the case here and it was the case from the start, the jury saw this clearly and Zimmerman is not guilty of anything because it was self defence. Same with the cop who originally refused to file charges of murder against Zimmerman (and was fired for that so that a political prosecutor could be brought into the case).
Self defence starts the moment you are attacked and believe your life and or health is in danger, at that point whatever you do is self defence and it's legal and must always stay that way.
He knows because it is the most logical obvious thing in the world. If you have a gun and you are not an expert fighter, distance is your friend and getting too close to the person you may want to attack is the opposite of what you want to do unless you have a death wish, because that person may grab the gun and shoot you instead.
Centralisation within any particular individual organisation that is not a government is not socialism or communism of fascism or even collectivism of any kind, after all, any business exists to make money for the INVESTORS, there is no other objective than making money for the investors, so that's the goal.
A government should in principle exist only to protect individual freedoms of people rather than divide them into groups and nominate some of the groups for entitlements that must be provided by some other groups as obligations, rather than dictate any form of central planning, etc.
However when you have government that is so deeply into planning the economy centrally, it sets all the rules and regulations for businesses, it taxes businesses and individuals, it creates money and it pretends to regulate the economy for the expressed benefit of it, well, then you have what USA has today, and it's ugly and it's economically destructive.