People who care about good policy do not get elected even in primaries (Ron Paul) and clearly can't get elected in the general elections (Gary Johnson).
It's not a but, you are talking about a file sharing service that prevents file sharing while trying to make money on content distribution, this is a facade a charade, there have to be easy to exploit holes in there in order to be able to search and exchange content.
The 2nd amendment are not there for squirrel hunting or even protection against some robber.
It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government and you are absolutely correct, as a government becomes more and more tyrannical it becomes more and more militaristic, building up its military to ensure that it can crash any rebellion. Americans are well armed compared to most other countries and so the USA government spends inordinate amounts of money on weapons. It's not just for the outside threats, it's for the politicians to feel they can stop an armed uprising inside the country. Would the military troops attack US citizens inside the country? I say they very well may.
And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it. Nuclear, biological, chemical, aircraft, submarines, tanks, bombs, missiles. If you disagree that your neighbour should be able to possess a nuclear missile then you should also disagree with your government owning any number of them, because in case you finally decide to take down that tyranny you have cultivated in your government, you don't want to be crashed, you want to crash the oppressors.
May I make a suggestion? Sex. Try that. I know you are talking about kids, and that means you aren't getting any lately, so try getting back to basics. And then, while you are doing it, play the video game you like and it's like you are gaming together.
I like how I managed to put 2 implausible situations into one paragraph.
This is what a real security problem looks like as opposed to made up problems like Java sandbox security bugs.
Android is a platform that is actually used in half a billion of devices on this planet that people actually use.
Java sandbox in a browser is almost unused, there is a very limited number of users and you have to click through applet installation, so stealth applet installation is not going to happen.
Here is how a real world security threat works: I AM ANOTHER FLASHY GAME, INSTALL ME!
The user installs the flashy game and it takes over his phone.
Here is how java applet works: I AM ANOTHER FLASHY GAME, INSTALL ME!
The user tries to click on the thing, it fails to download the IcedTea plugin or whatever is required and the user gives up.
The user has to set memory limits for the application, either using to much memory or too little, and the memory used is based on the usage for the application so that it is always a possibility to run out of memory for a Java application even if you have enough memory on your machine. This is a major usability and design flaw in Java.
- I agree, it's terrible that you have to tell the VM how much memory it is allowed to take from the physical box it is running on.
Oh, wait.
That's like every VM, at least every VM that runs on a server. Seriously, you have limits on how much memory is set to a specific VM. You think that's the wrong approach for a VM?
--
Now, maybe there should be a way to tell JVM upfront that you want it to be bound only by the underlying OS and the memory that it can give to the JVM, that I actually agree with.
Your sig, It is now safe to switch off your computer., you SOB, you get me with that every time. This is the third time I opened this story on/. and got to your comment and had to wait for the reboot again.
Obviously the application architecture is the key in server side performance numbers. If we are going to go with anecdotes, like the ones in the story, I can provide some of my own data, which I will pull right now from a server running my system used to manage a retail chain. The installation doesn't use the latest and greatest, here is what it is:
The app server has 32GB RAM (my app is given 12GB), 2 x Intel Xeon Quad-Core E5405 2GHz CPUs. Tomcat Apache 6.0.32, Apache/2.2.15 (Unix), SSL, Fedora 11 (fc11.x86_64)
The DB server runs latest PostgreSQL, 48GB RAM, 1 x Intel Xeon Quad-Core E5504 2GHz, same OS
The firewall is a OpenBSD 4.5 (clearly needs an upgrade) Celeron 2.80GHz with 1GB RAM (it does a few other things)
So, this is a real world situation, the system is used across retail chain stores, office management and suppliers.
(and apparently I cannot post a comment of the size that I wanted on/., 'request entity is too big' - that's Apache telling us that SSLRenegBufferSize is too small for my comment. Then, when I reduced the size of the comment enough,/. threw its ridiculous 'Lameness filter' at me, what's the point of having 'ecode' tags here?)
OK, so stats without the DB table printout:
out of 1031 requests for that chain in 8 working hours 2045 requests were processed. It's not a public website, so clearly magnitude is different.
298 requests took less than 10 milliseconds. 517 requests took 10 to 100 milliseconds. 741 requests took 100 to 500 milliseconds. 297 requests took 500 to 1 second 80 requests took 1 to 2 seconds 20 took 2 to 3 seconds 6 took 3 to 4 seconds 3 took 4 to 5 seconds 62 took 5 to 10 seconds 19 took 10 to 30 seconds 2 took 45 seconds.
That's considering that the data is compiled across 14 stores and across sales for variable time periods and variable categorisation of products. For example there are requests that span large categories of products (P&G vs Beiersdorf) across an entire fiscal year for all stores.
Unfortunately I don't have a C# management system to compare against.
The stated purpose of the freedom is to allow for the security of the state, not to arm the populous in defense against the political leaders of the state. In fact, the Constitution outright criminalizes the waging of war against the government.
- completely wrong.
You are reading something that you have no concept of.
Let me write it again for you and explain something:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
- in this case 'well regulated militia' only means a militia that works well.
It is NOT regulated by government! There are no rights that apply in group, there are only individual rights, every right is a right of an individual, not a right of a group (thus the entire concept of 'civil rights' is a complete nonsense, but that's beside the point).
The right of people to keep and bear arms to protect the security of a free state means that individuals have right to keep and bear arms, not groups of individuals (militia) but individuals themselves since all rights apply to individuals, not groups.
There are no rights that at the same time state that those rights must be 'regulated' by the State!
Again, the 'well regulated' means 'working condition', it's a perversion of the language that is in use here. Militias are also not under control of the federal government, when we talk about rights we do not talk about privileges or laws that limit rights by the fed.
Norway and the rest of the countries engaged in taxing people's income only distort the market, forcing people to figure out ways to avoid paying income taxes rather than concentrating on their business, actually improving the economy by doing the best they can.
I build and supply store management, supply chain management systems, POS is just one part of the chain, there are many many different ways that businesses can use to reduce their tax burden. You don't know it, but basically no small retailer would survive in the tax structures that are set up in a way that favour large monopolies and basically destroy small retailers. In business where a few percentage points either make or break your entire model, being able to reduce taxes can be the difference between staying open and shutting down.
doing it as a "solution" would make the USA look like they are playing silly lawyer-ball games
- what it would do is make it crystal clear to the world that USA cannot and will not pay its debts.
be even worse -- having the US government default on its debts. It's one thing to cut spending, but it's quite another for the US Congress to decide it's simply going to refuse pay the bills for money it has already spent.
- it's the same exact thing.
There is no difference between defaulting on the debts (and USA is a deadbeat debtor, don't act all surprised, USA does not pay debts) and printing an arbitrary bill with whatever number of zeros on it to "pay" the debts.
Here - that's the equivalent. 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Do you think that by printing a bill like that you PAY your debts?:))))))
Really?:)))))
Then you have bought this nonsense idea hook line and sinker, you don't understand value of money, you don't understand money and that's exactly what the system wants you to be - somebody who doesn't understand value, somebody who doesn't understand money. That's why charlat..... "economists" like Krugman are touted by the system, whilepeople who actually know what they are talking about, predicted all of these issues for decades, made serious money by taking their own advice, those people are shunned and laughed at by the establishment whenever possible.
disruption of vital services
- the difference between pretending to pay with fake money (inflation) and defaulting honestly (paying cents on a dollar) is actually huge. If USA defaults honestly (and it won't), it will recover much faster than if it takes the low route and prints (mints bazillion dollar coins, whatever).
Either of these is a default, printing money and paying with new cash is a default, but it's more insidious, it's worse than an honest bankruptcy and restructuring.
precipitous drop in their credit rating - do you realise that printing fake money (and all US dollars created by gov't or the Fed are fake, counterfeit) is what causes real rating agencies to drop US credit rating (and now SEC is suing that agency)? Do you realise that the 'fiscal cliff' was a deal by the gov't to try and balance the budget in the future in exchange for the S&P and Moody's not dropping the US rating back in 2012?
endless legal red tape
- yeah, restraining the gov't spending, that's 'terrible'.
higher interest rates for the foreseeable future
- imagine where USA interest rates will be once the country has its own 'Greek moment' (and there is no Germany big enough in the world to bail out USA).
Even the threat of that happening last year was enough to drop the nation's credit rating.
- USA credit rating was dropped not because of a possibility that USA will not borrow more to shift its debt from one credit card to another, the credit rating was dropped because USA is seen as high risk of default but it is also seen as high risk of attempting to print its troubles away.
There is no difference how you default, I don't want to hold US debt (not even s
Well, criminal code says otherwise. Private property ownership is supposed to be protected in order for capitalism to work, otherwise the incentives are not to create but to steal, you are right. However in the real world of free individuals most people actually want to create stuff, build things, it's a credit of respect as much as it is credit on the balance sheet.
The real problem that you are actually listing is size of the government in USA, which is constantly growing (and it's growing way beyond the willingness and the ability of the economy and of the individuals within it to pay for this government)
6. economic self-destruction leading to more crime
7. definition of rape is too broad, which includes things like 'statutory rape', it includes sex when women are under influence of any alcohol or drug, however this disregards the condition that the men are in, so it's always possible to accuse men of rape if any alcohol was consumed for example.
9. Too many laws, the gov't is too big, so you can be accused of a crime for doing anything.
10. Police jobs are welfare jobs. It's a welfare state.
11. The gov't is in bed with drug companies, insurance companies, the costs would be dropping every year if it wasn't for 1964 or 65 when Medicare was introduced. With Obamacare and nonsense like the affordable condom act it will get worse. Actually health care should be handled completely by the private sector, but if you are going to have government involvement, then private sector shouldn't be getting monopoly status, otherwise you end up with the worst parts of both systems (health care becomes sort of like them military industrial complex)
12. Medicare and Medicaid and any subsidies to drugs, combine that with the war on 'illegal dugs', you get that issue.
13. Economic situation, drug war and again, subsidies for medicine.
14. Government supplied loan guarantees, which cause tuition fees to rise because the market is not set by the individual decisions but by gov't centrally planning the economy and spending on education. It's the same exact thing as the military industrial complex and health care and housing market bubble and stock market bubble before it and the bond market bubble now.
16. Trade deficit is the problem that is created by the government.
19. Unconstitutional income taxes of all types are even unconstitutional for the reasons that you state. A real constitutional law is not supposed to confuse the shit out of you.
20. This is completely a government created problem: collectivism, central planning, anti-individualism. The debt is growing because the people are brainwashed not to care about their future, they only care about instant gratification, so they vote for politicians who promise that (however impossible to deliver), but the promise contains in itself this question: can we please go around the law even more? Can we bend the law more? Can we throw th
People who are making little money in USA are NOT productive. A productive person is not somebody working for a minimum wage at some Burger King, a productive person is somebody who figures out how to use the capital in a more efficient manner to increase efficiency.
For example Romney is quite productive, his company can take an unproductive US enterprise and figure out a way to extract more wealth out of it than he put into it. So it's a classical 'buy low, sell high' situation. Whether or not he uses some political advantage to do this (maybe he gets preferential loans that for example could be guaranteed by government), he is working within a system that has all these possibilities to take that advantage. Of-course the real productivity is only achieved when there is no government intervention at all, including any type of regulation, income level tax, subsidy, inflation (money printing).
A person is made more productive when capital is applied to his labour, so a person with an excavator can dig more and faster and better than a person with a shovel. The excavator is capital investment, which makes the labourer more productive.
When a company figures out a way to cut costs it makes itself more productive, because it increases efficiencies. So a company that outsources manufacturing to a country with lower government costs (fewer regulations, lower taxes, maybe less inflation) becomes more productive. But this means a company is more productive, not any particular employee within it.
Employees hired by companies are really only parts of the machine that the company is, and if those parts can be replaced with better quality parts that last longer or with cheaper parts (but this may mean salary and/or regulations surrounding hiring and firing and employment process), then replacing those parts makes the company more productive.
We always want more productivity based on free market incentives, because that's the type of productivity that makes everybody wealthier by allowing them to participate. If you are an investor you want to invest in a company that is more efficient, more productive. If you are a customer, you want to buy from a company that is giving you the best deal.
If you are buying products, you want to pay as little for them as possible, because that means you are being as efficient as possible, so you can buy more (and/or maybe have more savings and thus investment capital of your own).
Yeah, they certainly know how to cuss in those parts of the world.
I remember a joke about English vs Russian on a battlefield. The story goes: in case of a war between USA and Russia, in theory USA would win because Russian language uses very long words (many syllables, definitely an average English word is shorter than an average Russian word).
So during war it pays to be able to convey information in a shorter time span, so English speaking troops have an advantage there, Russians would take longer to say the same thing (and it's true).
However in practice the Russians would win because they wouldn't use their normal vocabulary, they would switch to the shortest words they know, and many of those are 3 letter words if you know what I mean:)
(the joke works if you know the Russian swear words) Also there is an entire sub-class of languages based on Russian that are used within prisons, where common words mean something else altogether and there are many words pulled from many languages and combined in a way that an uninitiated person wouldn't know what the hell they are saying (and it's not like Ebonics, where basically the same words as normal English words are modified somewhat to sound different, it's more like a code language with substitutions).
US dollar isn't going away tomorrow, however given the economic and financial situation that USA is facing with its centrally planning government and collectivist ideology permeating everything and given the size of the trade deficit and inflation, well, USD just may go away in the next couple of years, it's not impossible.
The current inflation is hitting the US bond market most of all and when the creditors decide to stop trading with USA for dollars and demand something of value, that's when interest rates take off into the sky and that's when all US banks and many other leveraged businesses shut down in bankruptcy (and the same applies to the government actually).
English language doesn't really have that many swear words to begin with, apparently an acceptable enough swear word filter only needs to include these: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
Now, if the dictionary was in Russian............ they'd have to restart the entire learning process, because you can make pretty much any word into a swear word by combining the appropriate (or inappropriate, depends on how you look at it) suffixes, prefixes, endings, combining multiple roots of words together. Even French beats English in this area actually.
Marriage and divorce are very much an economic issue. Used to be a woman got married and she didn't have to go to work, she'd stay home.
Now there is no such advantage (and for most women it was a welcome advantage), now the wives must work to pay their husbands' taxes (post tax revenue of an average couple is about the same as pre-tax income of the husband). What's the point in getting and staying married if it has no clear economic benefit to the woman?
It's all about economics. Women went into the work force in the late seventies, that's what allowed the economy to restructure and prolong itself a bit, but it's not a good consequence of the worsening economy obviously that people have to work more to get less, but you can thank the government for that, with all the inflation, taxes, regulations, which pushed productive jobs elsewhere.
Growing up in the United States, I have been served the koolaid of Capitalism several times and I have been taught that the inherent competition and struggle for money in all aspects of our lives make us the greatest country ever.
- here is a person that doesn't understand anything about the US system.
USA is not "the greatest country ever" because of capitalism. I say that it used to be "greatest country ever" at some point because it was a country that recognised and protected individual freedoms, understood that the collective is not above the individual, that the collective (government) must be authorised only a limited role.
Adhering to the principles of freedom unlike any other nation on the planet, with the federal government being structured around those principles, trying to preserve and protect them (protecting the Constitution being the actual oath that politicians take when they come into the office and of-course it is what they break every single minute of every single day today, which is why USA is falling apart) - that is what made USA "the greatest country ever".
Capitalism is only a consequence of a free society, it's not a prerequisite. Free market competitive capitalism is a consequence of people being free to try and fail and to try again and some will succeed, it's economic Darvinism: survival of the fittest ideas and implementations given free market principles, which are necessarily based on individual freedoms.
That's the actual greatness that USA used to have, nothing else - individual freedoms that were codified as the main principle.
It is no longer true, hasn't been for decades. That's why the economy is really falling apart and the society with it.
, but there is just too much inertia for everyone to switch unless they do it at the same time.
- that inertia is called cost.
So you have invested your savings to put together a set of tools that were made earlier, not in metric, in any other measurement system. Those tools were made to that other measurement system standard. You used your new tools to make other tools that you sell down the supply chain to somebody that uses tools that you made to build machines that are used to build other machines that are used to build various end products.
In every step of the way your current measurement standard is used.
To you it seems that the problem is purely logistical when you say things like 'inertia', but it is not logistical, it is a problem of scrapping your original investment in tools (and everybody else's investment) and starting over.
This means destroying useful, working tools and machines and building new ones. Tools and machines and knowledge and management that people are used working with, machines and tools and management and knowledge that produces goods right now.
So you have to stop everything everywhere, you have to scrap all the old but working stuff and start over.... by buying from other suppliers. With what money? Which suppliers will survive in the process, what will happen to the entire supply chain and who will live and die? How much time before everything is reset to its working conditions, people are trained and management documents and processes are updated, tested, etc.?
How much time before the end customers see any new products ever again? Will they ever see those products? Because it's not clear that the supply chain can actually survive this.
And what is the end result, what is the point, so that somebody's TV set is not marketed in inches but in cm?
Unfortunately I opened TFA, serves me right for doing something stupid like that. While reading TFA I realised that it had nothing to do with temperatures or quantum physics, it was a socialist propaganda page.
Quotes:
1.
Now, imagine that our society consists of people like Warren Buffett. Initially, when theyâ(TM)re poor, getting money makes them very happy. But as they get wealthier, the same amount of money doesnâ(TM)t make them nearly as happy.
2.
Unlike the Buffetts, if a rich Scrooge gives a dollar to a poor Scrooge, this would lower the overall happiness of Scrooges. In other words, the Scrooges generosity decreases as they acquire more money. Using our dictionary, this is a system whose temperature drops as it gains energy.
3.
Paradoxically, the Dalai Lama will give his money away to the billionaire, because losing money will make the Dalai Lama happier, and gaining money will make Waren Buffett just a teeny bit happier.
Obviously all of this is pure nonsense and propaganda. Buffet's "happiness" isn't a function of him spending money, it's a function of him being able to successfully grow his money, that's his entire philosophy, every statement he makes, including all those statements about taxing the wealthy more are aimed at this specific goal (he benefits from death taxes more than anybody else in USA, he buys out and restructures companies that are after death so that taxes can be paid to IRS, he makes a killing in profits there).
"Scrooge" doesn't even exist, to make money a person has to invest and investments (unless governments are involved) always increase overall wealth in the economy, raising everybody's standard of living, providing cheaper and more plentiful goods and services. That's how people actually make money - by creating it.
Dalai Lama is a political hack, like every politician that aims at the populous, he likes to give meat to the idiots that listen to him. It doesn't seem to bother him to fly a private jet for example, rather than take coach.
---
TFA goes into long and twisted details of this completely broken ideology, which seems to take the central place of the entire post there, and the physics take a back burner, TFA isn't there to give you any more information about negative temperatures, it's a political hack job.
You seem to care so much about this topic, why do you care?
You are saying that women are never going to be equal until there are no more gender stereotypes, but you didn't explain why it matters or even is a 'good thing' if there are no more stereotypes?
I know women who are very intelligent, I know some that are quite dumb, I know some that are nice and I know some that are complete bitches. There are unions of those sets, some bitches are smart and some nice girls are stupid. What you want to stay away from is: stupid bitches, but I think that applies equally to women and men ("stupid assholes" I suppose).
It seems to me your real problem with this topic is something else though, you are talking about women getting pregnant, welfare and rape. What exactly is your question or the real root of the matter there, what is your issue?
I think this entire story is irrelevant really. Some girls do better at school than some boys, so is there really an issue with genders or is there really an issue with schools?
I think there are more problems with schools themselves than with students of different genders. I think there is a real problem that is not addressed here, why is the society hell bent on forcing people into public schools, with curriculum that is similar for all people, with teachers that don't want to teach, with students not being interested in what is going on, why is this a good system?
I think it's a terrible system from the start, young people are not actually supposed to be prisoners of the system (any more than adults are). It's the education system that blows chunks, it should be competitive, there should be different ideas tried and implemented by different people trying different things in a search of a better outcome in terms of profit, but this means efficiency. However this does not mean worse results, it may mean that we devise a way actually to ensure that people who are studying in schools are interested in doing it and those who are not are not wasting time there.
Slashdot Mirror
She is a witch, did you burn her?
People who care about good policy do not get elected even in primaries (Ron Paul) and clearly can't get elected in the general elections (Gary Johnson).
It's not a but, you are talking about a file sharing service that prevents file sharing while trying to make money on content distribution, this is a facade a charade, there have to be easy to exploit holes in there in order to be able to search and exchange content.
The 2nd amendment are not there for squirrel hunting or even protection against some robber.
It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government and you are absolutely correct, as a government becomes more and more tyrannical it becomes more and more militaristic, building up its military to ensure that it can crash any rebellion. Americans are well armed compared to most other countries and so the USA government spends inordinate amounts of money on weapons. It's not just for the outside threats, it's for the politicians to feel they can stop an armed uprising inside the country. Would the military troops attack US citizens inside the country? I say they very well may.
And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it. Nuclear, biological, chemical, aircraft, submarines, tanks, bombs, missiles. If you disagree that your neighbour should be able to possess a nuclear missile then you should also disagree with your government owning any number of them, because in case you finally decide to take down that tyranny you have cultivated in your government, you don't want to be crashed, you want to crash the oppressors.
May I make a suggestion? Sex. Try that. I know you are talking about kids, and that means you aren't getting any lately, so try getting back to basics. And then, while you are doing it, play the video game you like and it's like you are gaming together.
I like how I managed to put 2 implausible situations into one paragraph.
This is what a real security problem looks like as opposed to made up problems like Java sandbox security bugs.
Android is a platform that is actually used in half a billion of devices on this planet that people actually use.
Java sandbox in a browser is almost unused, there is a very limited number of users and you have to click through applet installation, so stealth applet installation is not going to happen.
Here is how a real world security threat works: I AM ANOTHER FLASHY GAME, INSTALL ME!
The user installs the flashy game and it takes over his phone.
Here is how java applet works: I AM ANOTHER FLASHY GAME, INSTALL ME!
The user tries to click on the thing, it fails to download the IcedTea plugin or whatever is required and the user gives up.
The user has to set memory limits for the application, either using to much memory or too little, and the memory used is based on the usage for the application so that it is always a possibility to run out of memory for a Java application even if you have enough memory on your machine. This is a major usability and design flaw in Java.
- I agree, it's terrible that you have to tell the VM how much memory it is allowed to take from the physical box it is running on.
Oh, wait.
That's like every VM, at least every VM that runs on a server. Seriously, you have limits on how much memory is set to a specific VM. You think that's the wrong approach for a VM?
--
Now, maybe there should be a way to tell JVM upfront that you want it to be bound only by the underlying OS and the memory that it can give to the JVM, that I actually agree with.
Your sig, It is now safe to switch off your computer., you SOB, you get me with that every time. This is the third time I opened this story on /. and got to your comment and had to wait for the reboot again.
Obviously the application architecture is the key in server side performance numbers. If we are going to go with anecdotes, like the ones in the story, I can provide some of my own data, which I will pull right now from a server running my system used to manage a retail chain. The installation doesn't use the latest and greatest, here is what it is:
The app server has 32GB RAM (my app is given 12GB), 2 x Intel Xeon Quad-Core E5405 2GHz CPUs.
Tomcat Apache 6.0.32, Apache/2.2.15 (Unix), SSL,
Fedora 11 (fc11.x86_64)
The DB server runs latest PostgreSQL, 48GB RAM, 1 x Intel Xeon Quad-Core E5504 2GHz, same OS
The firewall is a OpenBSD 4.5 (clearly needs an upgrade)
Celeron 2.80GHz with 1GB RAM (it does a few other things)
So, this is a real world situation, the system is used across retail chain stores, office management and suppliers.
(and apparently I cannot post a comment of the size that I wanted on /., 'request entity is too big' - that's Apache telling us that SSLRenegBufferSize is too small for my comment. Then, when I reduced the size of the comment enough, /. threw its ridiculous 'Lameness filter' at me, what's the point of having 'ecode' tags here?)
OK, so stats without the DB table printout:
out of 1031 requests for that chain in 8 working hours 2045 requests were processed. It's not a public website, so clearly magnitude is different.
298 requests took less than 10 milliseconds.
517 requests took 10 to 100 milliseconds.
741 requests took 100 to 500 milliseconds.
297 requests took 500 to 1 second
80 requests took 1 to 2 seconds
20 took 2 to 3 seconds
6 took 3 to 4 seconds
3 took 4 to 5 seconds
62 took 5 to 10 seconds
19 took 10 to 30 seconds
2 took 45 seconds.
That's considering that the data is compiled across 14 stores and across sales for variable time periods and variable categorisation of products. For example there are requests that span large categories of products (P&G vs Beiersdorf) across an entire fiscal year for all stores.
Unfortunately I don't have a C# management system to compare against.
The stated purpose of the freedom is to allow for the security of the state, not to arm the populous in defense against the political leaders of the state. In fact, the Constitution outright criminalizes the waging of war against the government.
- completely wrong.
You are reading something that you have no concept of.
Let me write it again for you and explain something:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
- in this case 'well regulated militia' only means a militia that works well.
It is NOT regulated by government! There are no rights that apply in group, there are only individual rights, every right is a right of an individual, not a right of a group (thus the entire concept of 'civil rights' is a complete nonsense, but that's beside the point).
The right of people to keep and bear arms to protect the security of a free state means that individuals have right to keep and bear arms, not groups of individuals (militia) but individuals themselves since all rights apply to individuals, not groups.
There are no rights that at the same time state that those rights must be 'regulated' by the State!
Again, the 'well regulated' means 'working condition', it's a perversion of the language that is in use here. Militias are also not under control of the federal government, when we talk about rights we do not talk about privileges or laws that limit rights by the fed.
Define "it".
Does it cost anything to sign up for an FB account? Probably not.
I think having FB introduce you to people you who don't know you for a fee is a reasonable offer.
Norway and the rest of the countries engaged in taxing people's income only distort the market, forcing people to figure out ways to avoid paying income taxes rather than concentrating on their business, actually improving the economy by doing the best they can.
I build and supply store management, supply chain management systems, POS is just one part of the chain, there are many many different ways that businesses can use to reduce their tax burden. You don't know it, but basically no small retailer would survive in the tax structures that are set up in a way that favour large monopolies and basically destroy small retailers. In business where a few percentage points either make or break your entire model, being able to reduce taxes can be the difference between staying open and shutting down.
doing it as a "solution" would make the USA look like they are playing silly lawyer-ball games
- what it would do is make it crystal clear to the world that USA cannot and will not pay its debts.
be even worse -- having the US government default on its debts. It's one thing to cut spending, but it's quite another for the US Congress to decide it's simply going to refuse pay the bills for money it has already spent.
- it's the same exact thing.
There is no difference between defaulting on the debts (and USA is a deadbeat debtor, don't act all surprised, USA does not pay debts) and printing an arbitrary bill with whatever number of zeros on it to "pay" the debts.
Here - that's the equivalent. 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Do you think that by printing a bill like that you PAY your debts? :))))))
Really? :)))))
Then you have bought this nonsense idea hook line and sinker, you don't understand value of money, you don't understand money and that's exactly what the system wants you to be - somebody who doesn't understand value, somebody who doesn't understand money. That's why charlat..... "economists" like Krugman are touted by the system, while people who actually know what they are talking about, predicted all of these issues for decades, made serious money by taking their own advice, those people are shunned and laughed at by the establishment whenever possible.
disruption of vital services
- the difference between pretending to pay with fake money (inflation) and defaulting honestly (paying cents on a dollar) is actually huge. If USA defaults honestly (and it won't), it will recover much faster than if it takes the low route and prints (mints bazillion dollar coins, whatever).
Either of these is a default, printing money and paying with new cash is a default, but it's more insidious, it's worse than an honest bankruptcy and restructuring.
precipitous drop in their credit rating - do you realise that printing fake money (and all US dollars created by gov't or the Fed are fake, counterfeit) is what causes real rating agencies to drop US credit rating (and now SEC is suing that agency)? Do you realise that the 'fiscal cliff' was a deal by the gov't to try and balance the budget in the future in exchange for the S&P and Moody's not dropping the US rating back in 2012?
endless legal red tape
- yeah, restraining the gov't spending, that's 'terrible'.
higher interest rates for the foreseeable future
- imagine where USA interest rates will be once the country has its own 'Greek moment' (and there is no Germany big enough in the world to bail out USA).
Even the threat of that happening last year was enough to drop the nation's credit rating.
- USA credit rating was dropped not because of a possibility that USA will not borrow more to shift its debt from one credit card to another, the credit rating was dropped because USA is seen as high risk of default but it is also seen as high risk of attempting to print its troubles away.
There is no difference how you default, I don't want to hold US debt (not even s
Well, criminal code says otherwise. Private property ownership is supposed to be protected in order for capitalism to work, otherwise the incentives are not to create but to steal, you are right. However in the real world of free individuals most people actually want to create stuff, build things, it's a credit of respect as much as it is credit on the balance sheet.
The real problem that you are actually listing is size of the government in USA, which is constantly growing (and it's growing way beyond the willingness and the ability of the economy and of the individuals within it to pay for this government)
That would be numbers:
1. drug war
2. various 'feed the poor' programs, agriculture subsidies including high fructose corn syrup
3. size of government coupled with entitlements and with disincentives to stay married, in reality it's an economic issue.
4. the failing public education system
5. drug war
6. economic self-destruction leading to more crime
7. definition of rape is too broad, which includes things like 'statutory rape', it includes sex when women are under influence of any alcohol or drug, however this disregards the condition that the men are in, so it's always possible to accuse men of rape if any alcohol was consumed for example.
9. Too many laws, the gov't is too big, so you can be accused of a crime for doing anything.
10. Police jobs are welfare jobs. It's a welfare state.
11. The gov't is in bed with drug companies, insurance companies, the costs would be dropping every year if it wasn't for 1964 or 65 when Medicare was introduced. With Obamacare and nonsense like the affordable condom act it will get worse. Actually health care should be handled completely by the private sector, but if you are going to have government involvement, then private sector shouldn't be getting monopoly status, otherwise you end up with the worst parts of both systems (health care becomes sort of like them military industrial complex)
12. Medicare and Medicaid and any subsidies to drugs, combine that with the war on 'illegal dugs', you get that issue.
13. Economic situation, drug war and again, subsidies for medicine.
14. Government supplied loan guarantees, which cause tuition fees to rise because the market is not set by the individual decisions but by gov't centrally planning the economy and spending on education. It's the same exact thing as the military industrial complex and health care and housing market bubble and stock market bubble before it and the bond market bubble now.
16. Trade deficit is the problem that is created by the government.
17. Military industrial complex, the war economy. Even USA top charlat..... 'economists' call for more war, even if with aliens.
18. ditto
19. Unconstitutional income taxes of all types are even unconstitutional for the reasons that you state. A real constitutional law is not supposed to confuse the shit out of you.
20. This is completely a government created problem: collectivism, central planning, anti-individualism. The debt is growing because the people are brainwashed not to care about their future, they only care about instant gratification, so they vote for politicians who promise that (however impossible to deliver), but the promise contains in itself this question: can we please go around the law even more? Can we bend the law more? Can we throw th
People who are making little money in USA are NOT productive. A productive person is not somebody working for a minimum wage at some Burger King, a productive person is somebody who figures out how to use the capital in a more efficient manner to increase efficiency.
For example Romney is quite productive, his company can take an unproductive US enterprise and figure out a way to extract more wealth out of it than he put into it. So it's a classical 'buy low, sell high' situation. Whether or not he uses some political advantage to do this (maybe he gets preferential loans that for example could be guaranteed by government), he is working within a system that has all these possibilities to take that advantage. Of-course the real productivity is only achieved when there is no government intervention at all, including any type of regulation, income level tax, subsidy, inflation (money printing).
A person is made more productive when capital is applied to his labour, so a person with an excavator can dig more and faster and better than a person with a shovel. The excavator is capital investment, which makes the labourer more productive.
When a company figures out a way to cut costs it makes itself more productive, because it increases efficiencies. So a company that outsources manufacturing to a country with lower government costs (fewer regulations, lower taxes, maybe less inflation) becomes more productive. But this means a company is more productive, not any particular employee within it.
Employees hired by companies are really only parts of the machine that the company is, and if those parts can be replaced with better quality parts that last longer or with cheaper parts (but this may mean salary and/or regulations surrounding hiring and firing and employment process), then replacing those parts makes the company more productive.
We always want more productivity based on free market incentives, because that's the type of productivity that makes everybody wealthier by allowing them to participate. If you are an investor you want to invest in a company that is more efficient, more productive. If you are a customer, you want to buy from a company that is giving you the best deal.
If you are buying products, you want to pay as little for them as possible, because that means you are being as efficient as possible, so you can buy more (and/or maybe have more savings and thus investment capital of your own).
Yeah, they certainly know how to cuss in those parts of the world.
I remember a joke about English vs Russian on a battlefield. The story goes: in case of a war between USA and Russia, in theory USA would win because Russian language uses very long words (many syllables, definitely an average English word is shorter than an average Russian word).
So during war it pays to be able to convey information in a shorter time span, so English speaking troops have an advantage there, Russians would take longer to say the same thing (and it's true).
However in practice the Russians would win because they wouldn't use their normal vocabulary, they would switch to the shortest words they know, and many of those are 3 letter words if you know what I mean :)
(the joke works if you know the Russian swear words)
Also there is an entire sub-class of languages based on Russian that are used within prisons, where common words mean something else altogether and there are many words pulled from many languages and combined in a way that an uninitiated person wouldn't know what the hell they are saying (and it's not like Ebonics, where basically the same words as normal English words are modified somewhat to sound different, it's more like a code language with substitutions).
US dollar isn't going away tomorrow, however given the economic and financial situation that USA is facing with its centrally planning government and collectivist ideology permeating everything and given the size of the trade deficit and inflation, well, USD just may go away in the next couple of years, it's not impossible.
Here is what may trigger that crisis
Here is a good new video taking on the fake numbers that government propaganda machine pushes.
The current inflation is hitting the US bond market most of all and when the creditors decide to stop trading with USA for dollars and demand something of value, that's when interest rates take off into the sky and that's when all US banks and many other leveraged businesses shut down in bankruptcy (and the same applies to the government actually).
English language doesn't really have that many swear words to begin with, apparently an acceptable enough swear word filter only needs to include these: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
Now, if the dictionary was in Russian............ they'd have to restart the entire learning process, because you can make pretty much any word into a swear word by combining the appropriate (or inappropriate, depends on how you look at it) suffixes, prefixes, endings, combining multiple roots of words together. Even French beats English in this area actually.
Marriage and divorce are very much an economic issue. Used to be a woman got married and she didn't have to go to work, she'd stay home.
Now there is no such advantage (and for most women it was a welcome advantage), now the wives must work to pay their husbands' taxes (post tax revenue of an average couple is about the same as pre-tax income of the husband). What's the point in getting and staying married if it has no clear economic benefit to the woman?
It's all about economics. Women went into the work force in the late seventies, that's what allowed the economy to restructure and prolong itself a bit, but it's not a good consequence of the worsening economy obviously that people have to work more to get less, but you can thank the government for that, with all the inflation, taxes, regulations, which pushed productive jobs elsewhere.
Growing up in the United States, I have been served the koolaid of Capitalism several times and I have been taught that the inherent competition and struggle for money in all aspects of our lives make us the greatest country ever.
- here is a person that doesn't understand anything about the US system.
USA is not "the greatest country ever" because of capitalism. I say that it used to be "greatest country ever" at some point because it was a country that recognised and protected individual freedoms, understood that the collective is not above the individual, that the collective (government) must be authorised only a limited role.
Adhering to the principles of freedom unlike any other nation on the planet, with the federal government being structured around those principles, trying to preserve and protect them (protecting the Constitution being the actual oath that politicians take when they come into the office and of-course it is what they break every single minute of every single day today, which is why USA is falling apart) - that is what made USA "the greatest country ever".
Capitalism is only a consequence of a free society, it's not a prerequisite. Free market competitive capitalism is a consequence of people being free to try and fail and to try again and some will succeed, it's economic Darvinism: survival of the fittest ideas and implementations given free market principles, which are necessarily based on individual freedoms.
That's the actual greatness that USA used to have, nothing else - individual freedoms that were codified as the main principle.
It is no longer true, hasn't been for decades. That's why the economy is really falling apart and the society with it.
, but there is just too much inertia for everyone to switch unless they do it at the same time.
- that inertia is called cost.
So you have invested your savings to put together a set of tools that were made earlier, not in metric, in any other measurement system. Those tools were made to that other measurement system standard. You used your new tools to make other tools that you sell down the supply chain to somebody that uses tools that you made to build machines that are used to build other machines that are used to build various end products.
In every step of the way your current measurement standard is used.
To you it seems that the problem is purely logistical when you say things like 'inertia', but it is not logistical, it is a problem of scrapping your original investment in tools (and everybody else's investment) and starting over.
This means destroying useful, working tools and machines and building new ones. Tools and machines and knowledge and management that people are used working with, machines and tools and management and knowledge that produces goods right now.
So you have to stop everything everywhere, you have to scrap all the old but working stuff and start over.... by buying from other suppliers. With what money? Which suppliers will survive in the process, what will happen to the entire supply chain and who will live and die? How much time before everything is reset to its working conditions, people are trained and management documents and processes are updated, tested, etc.?
How much time before the end customers see any new products ever again? Will they ever see those products? Because it's not clear that the supply chain can actually survive this.
And what is the end result, what is the point, so that somebody's TV set is not marketed in inches but in cm?
Yeah, that makes sense.
Unfortunately I opened TFA, serves me right for doing something stupid like that. While reading TFA I realised that it had nothing to do with temperatures or quantum physics, it was a socialist propaganda page.
Quotes:
1.
Now, imagine that our society consists of people like Warren Buffett. Initially, when theyâ(TM)re poor, getting money makes them very happy. But as they get wealthier, the same amount of money doesnâ(TM)t make them nearly as happy.
2.
Unlike the Buffetts, if a rich Scrooge gives a dollar to a poor Scrooge, this would lower the overall happiness of Scrooges. In other words, the Scrooges generosity decreases as they acquire more money. Using our dictionary, this is a system whose temperature drops as it gains energy.
3.
Paradoxically, the Dalai Lama will give his money away to the billionaire, because losing money will make the Dalai Lama happier, and gaining money will make Waren Buffett just a teeny bit happier.
Obviously all of this is pure nonsense and propaganda. Buffet's "happiness" isn't a function of him spending money, it's a function of him being able to successfully grow his money, that's his entire philosophy, every statement he makes, including all those statements about taxing the wealthy more are aimed at this specific goal (he benefits from death taxes more than anybody else in USA, he buys out and restructures companies that are after death so that taxes can be paid to IRS, he makes a killing in profits there).
"Scrooge" doesn't even exist, to make money a person has to invest and investments (unless governments are involved) always increase overall wealth in the economy, raising everybody's standard of living, providing cheaper and more plentiful goods and services. That's how people actually make money - by creating it.
Dalai Lama is a political hack, like every politician that aims at the populous, he likes to give meat to the idiots that listen to him. It doesn't seem to bother him to fly a private jet for example, rather than take coach.
---
TFA goes into long and twisted details of this completely broken ideology, which seems to take the central place of the entire post there, and the physics take a back burner, TFA isn't there to give you any more information about negative temperatures, it's a political hack job.
You seem to care so much about this topic, why do you care?
You are saying that women are never going to be equal until there are no more gender stereotypes, but you didn't explain why it matters or even is a 'good thing' if there are no more stereotypes?
I know women who are very intelligent, I know some that are quite dumb, I know some that are nice and I know some that are complete bitches. There are unions of those sets, some bitches are smart and some nice girls are stupid. What you want to stay away from is: stupid bitches, but I think that applies equally to women and men ("stupid assholes" I suppose).
It seems to me your real problem with this topic is something else though, you are talking about women getting pregnant, welfare and rape. What exactly is your question or the real root of the matter there, what is your issue?
I think this entire story is irrelevant really. Some girls do better at school than some boys, so is there really an issue with genders or is there really an issue with schools?
I think there are more problems with schools themselves than with students of different genders. I think there is a real problem that is not addressed here, why is the society hell bent on forcing people into public schools, with curriculum that is similar for all people, with teachers that don't want to teach, with students not being interested in what is going on, why is this a good system?
I think it's a terrible system from the start, young people are not actually supposed to be prisoners of the system (any more than adults are). It's the education system that blows chunks, it should be competitive, there should be different ideas tried and implemented by different people trying different things in a search of a better outcome in terms of profit, but this means efficiency. However this does not mean worse results, it may mean that we devise a way actually to ensure that people who are studying in schools are interested in doing it and those who are not are not wasting time there.
I have a better proposal:
Shut down USPTO and stop this government sponsored monopoly creation.
Oh, and the same applies to the copyright office.