Well, let me get back to you on your second paragraph.
There should be nothing illegal about printing money, if the government is doing it every day of the week for its own political purposes. People should not allow the government to have such a monopoly on printing of the cash, cash is not something to be sanctified. Those are just 'I owe you' notes, forced upon the population. Has the government not intervened and setup this ponzy scheme, where it prints as much as it wants (it makes much more money by printing, than it could ever do by taxing or borrowing), the money would have been created by private enterprise, that could compete with other private enterprise on the value of its cash.
Yes, that's how things would work if the government did not want to steal money, but they do, it's profitable, that's why some rob banks - that's where the money is.
Also, let me be the first to inform you that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about when you start ranting about how the government prints and distributes cash.
- that's gold man. The more times you state it, the more correct your statement will become, is that the idea?
How am I a leftie? Because I point out some turd's hypocritical statements? I didn't realize that being a right-leaning libertarian made me a leftie. I'll make sure to make a note about that.
- not a 'leftie', no, I wouldn't insult the normal people on 'the left' this way.
I read the rest of it. His whole thing about Hong Kong ignores the fact that most people in the country were basically exploited wage slaves.
- Hong Kong now has the closest system to free market economy in the world. Wage slaves live in the rest of the world, in the US it's credit slaves now, forget wages. Also it's Hong Kong, not mainland China. This is were people are doing business.
Are you being purposely obtuse, do I have to use a visual aid? Taxes, it's built into the tax code. Property taxes in case of Toronto. Can I avoid paying them without being thrown into the meat grinder that the system has created for such cases as myself?
Given a choice of being forced to pay taxes and to use the only available service, or to pay user fees to some privately held fire-department/police service that would have to compete on the free market, which one would I chose you ask? Really, you are asking me this?
Cop out ? Are you asking me if I am using the fire department service or not? I am answering to you: I am forced to only use the services, since they are already paid by the taxes. What part of 'I am already paying for it' can't you comprehend?
If I had a choice to use competing fire-departments / police departments would I be upset about the extra choices? No. I would gladly pick ones that I am more comfortable with.
So you eschew all police and fire services and use no public utilities correct?
- as in do I avoid it? Is it possible to avoid it in society that forces it upon you? Why didn't you ask if I eschew buying political power to gain monetary advantage?
Yes, I am against all forms of socialism/communism that is forced upon me, it's not possible to avoid things that exist, especially if it's government mandated.
When people print money out illegally, it slightly decreases the value of all money by artificially introducing more money into the system without actually introducing more value.... Honestly your comprehension of economics reminds me a lot of myself... when I was in 6th grade.
- your reading comprehension is still at the same 6th grade level though.
My point is that it does not matter who prints money, any printing always dilutes the value, the difference between you printing it or the government printing is a legal question, either destroys currency value.
When governments print money, the pretend that it is for a good cause, the truth is far from it, the cause is always the same: politicians want to stay in power, so they 'spread the wealth' in ways, that ensure they stay in power. They print money and devalue the currency of everyone, but they give the printed cash (or electronic cash in case of Bernanke) to preferred corporations/banks. This is the so called 'trickle down' economy from the Reagan's times. Of-course, nothing trickles down to anyone, it stays in the closed loop of people who are very close to the government/top of those corporations. More interestingly, these money, printed by the gov-t at this point are given away at 0% (in US at least, same happened in Japan just a while ago), and then this money is used to buy long term money from the governments, the treasury bills, that yield something like 3-4% for 10 year maturity bills at this point.
So the government gives free money to banks, who use this free money to buy more money at higher yields from the same government. What is ridiculous, is that the money is diluted, while the actual population is not benefiting a cent, the banks are not lending to private corporations/people at normal terms.
I am saying that the government (the federal reserve in the US in this case) has a policy of destroying money's value and the long term of this is total annihilation of the dollar. I am saying that instead of waiting for these fat-cats to do so, just do it yourself, at least you'll have a short term benefit from it and you will hurt their evil fucking scheme a bit. Yeah, I understand how this works, I understand that it does not matter who prints the money, you or the government, it destroys money's value because there is no production behind the printed shit.
Is duplicating government fiat (legal tender) cash illegal if you do not distribute it at all? So if you draw a bunch of hundreds at home, but never use it, is that a crime or art?
I am a stern opponent to anything communist/socialist in nature, being born and raised until the age of 16 back in the non-existent USSR. I am also against this buddy-buddy system, that apparently all of these so called capitalist societies have. There is no principled system anywhere, in the 'communist' countries, it's basically a dictatorship and no free enterprise is allowed to compete with it, because there is no competition, the planned economy is doomed. In the so called 'capitalist' countries now it is all about buying power in the government to push forward agenda of getting free money printed by the government.
Hong Kong seems to be the place where the society came as close as possible to the real free market system, money is created by private entities, there are competing currencies, government can't dilute the value and give preferential treatment to certain corporations, banks, etc. You don't like what one monetary system is doing, move your business to another. I am sure it has its problems, which I am not aware of, since I never lived there, but it seems to be the best out of everything I have seen or hear of so far.
I am not surprised that Brin is the guy who takes the principled stand and I would not be surprised to find out that he came up with the 'no evil' slogan. It's obviously going to be a losing battle, if we know anything about people, they'll fuck up anything until it's dead, look at HP, they used to be the 'no evil' company of engineers. I just remembered the horror stories connected to a professional firm jumping shark-ceo type, Fiorina was her name?
That's the problem, we can't live forever, so our principles die with us and there is nothing much we can do past that to promote our ideals. We try, but looks like we fail in all cases, that's too bad.
Good luck to Brin in this battle, I don't know that even his crazy fortune can fight off this one for too long and I don't know how interested he will be in that once enough pressure is applied from enough people interested in profit motive only.
if you succeed at impaling yourself on a pen and die, then how is the fact that it maybe illegal different from a tree falling in a forest and producing sound-waves if nobody is around to hear them?
I suppose it is a crime to print money if you are not a government and distribute them, but simply print them and not distribute them, not buy anything for that printed cash, how is that illegal?
On the other hand I am against counterfeiting laws altogether, now that every government can print any amount of cash they want (don't even have to print, Bernanke said on a 60 minutes episode that all he has to do is add some zeros on a computer).
Who cares who creates money if it gets created anyway? WHO GIVES A SHIT? If money is printed it dilutes the value of existing money, regardless whether it's the government who prints it or someone at home.
I even believe that someone printing money at home is better for spreading the wealth around than what governments are doing. Governments print money and give the money at 0% at this point to giant banks and various preferred corporations, like weapons contractors. Then this money is used by those banks and corporations in a laundry scheme to buy government long term money - bonds. Who benefited from this devaluation of money?
If you print money at home, at least you can distribute it among people, who would never otherwise get it from the government. At this point printing money privately from my perspective is absolutely not immoral, it sure is illegal, but absolutely not immoral. These fiat money is destroyed by a select group of high ranking individuals, fuck them. Let's all print money until it's worth not more than paper with ink on it. Beat them at their own game I say.
again, did he produce/order/pay for this real child porn? Did he promote abuse of children, did he do anything that would entice someone to abuse children?
Aren't those the questions, not whether he had pictures of child porn? If he actually abused children, if he paid to have porn produced, if he gave someone incentive to produce child porn, then I would agree with you, otherwise this is a witch hunt.
and what is wrong with him having images of any kind of porn, whether it is child or otherwise? Did he order these images? Did he pay for them? Did he produce them?
If he did not order/pay/produce those actual porn images and he found them somewhere on the web and had them on his computer, how does that make him responsible for abusing any actual children, might I ask?
Obviously most of society now believes that he is guilty of abusing children if he is now a sex offender for having images he never produced or paid for.
That is unless I am wrong here and he did produce those images or paid for them. My point is this: did he provide any incentive for abusing children, did he abuse children? Isn't that what sex offense is, actual abuse? This society is wrong.
I don't know if they are really opposed of free exchange of ideas, it's not their country that gave birth to the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They are exchanging all sorts of ideas freely, I mean they do not have a culture that supports copyrights, patents and such, they copy and copy and copy and make things cheap by copying in huge quantities. At some point quantity ends up as quality in its own right.
Soviet science was born out of the older Russian science, this is obviously true, a simple example is Tsiolkovsky, who was the rocket scientist.
Soviet research produced the idea and an implementation of a fusion reactor, TOKAMAK (Tamm and Sakharov).
Lev Landau was a physics superman: quantum physics, superfluids, superconductivity, plasma physics, neutrinos...
Kapitsa, Semenov (first Soviet Nobel prize.)
Amazing discoveries in genetics by Belyaev ( a story was not long ago on this site) who showed how evolution allows creation of different species of animal in very short leaps and does not necessarily require extremely long timeframes. He showed it by selecting for more tame foxes, he ended up with a different animal altogether.
There were discoveries, there were advances, of-course most of the effort was wasted (in my opinion) as always on things of no consequence, like weapons.
Do you mean I am lacking in american culture? That would not be a surprise, as I am not american. On the other hand that 'old saying' is neither true nor witty. Moreover, it looks like that good old american culture didn't do you much good anyway, replying to a reasonable critique with an attempted ad hominem.
You know the old saying, which is true, as well as witty; that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee.
- can you please enlighten us, what part of that statement is true as you said? That a horse was designed? That a camel was designed? That a camel is 'worse' than a horse? Is camel worse than a horse for the environment it lives in?
You know that it is silly, that every time a new version of FF comes out, every add-on author has to up the version on his code and resubmit to amo? Most of the changes from version to version of FF does not affect most addons at all and yet there is this whole thing with addons having to be resubmitted, wait in the queue for weeks and at the end the only change in the new version is the maxVersion tag in the installation rdf.
On the other hand there is now talk of completely changing the system of interfaces between addons and the browser. Who has time and interest to rewrite the same thing over and over again?
it would be totally irrelevant how strong the laser would be, regardless of it's source strength every photon from the source would arrive to the edge in 1 year only but if you spin the source at 360 degrees / 1 s and turn it off at that point, then all you need to do is calculate the number of photons that left the source and divide across the length of the circumference. The calculation of that length is left as an exercise to the reader (I suggest to use Pi in it though.)
But let's say the source infinitely powerful to avoid this question, it' is so powerful that it emits enough photons in one second actually to meaningfully cover the entire length of the circumference. Excellent, let's say that's what it is.
Then here is what it would look like: all points on the circle's circumference would be struck with photons a year after they leave the source,within a fraction of a second from each other as a group.
It would be not much different than if there were multiple light sources shining out of the center onto the edge for a fraction of a second. If the circumference was reflective, then 2 years after the light went out, it would come back tot the center from the edge. So obviously there is no FTL travel or communication between the source and destination points.
Between all the points on the circumference there was no communication of any kind either when the light came in a year later, or when the light came back to the center a year later. So nothing went faster than light. Nobody saw the entire circumference at the moment of light striking it, but the reflection from every point at the edge came 2 years later to the center, and again, nothing was received faster than light anywhere.
What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done.
Take a circle of 1 l.y. radius and turn a laser in the center pointing at the circumference. A year later a dot would appear on the circumference. Now spin the light source 360 degrees in 1 second.
Why would the light at the circumference spin in 1 second if took 1 year for the original light source to appear? Here is a prediction. Once you spin the source of light, the light dot would disappear completely.
You have now divided the intensity of the light in the dot across the circumference to a point where it's not even meaningful. Only a few photons would reach an odd point on the circle's edge a light year after that photon took off the light source. There is no FTL movement of the dot even in this case! Each photon leaving the light source would struck a point at the circle's edge a year later but there will not be enough photons striking any single point to be any different from noise.
The IMAGINARY light dot made it across the circumference at speedsd faster than light, but not a real one.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what to say, thank you?
Excellent answer, that's the answer right there: 'if you use it as 100 dollars'.
Well, let me get back to you on your second paragraph.
There should be nothing illegal about printing money, if the government is doing it every day of the week for its own political purposes. People should not allow the government to have such a monopoly on printing of the cash, cash is not something to be sanctified. Those are just 'I owe you' notes, forced upon the population. Has the government not intervened and setup this ponzy scheme, where it prints as much as it wants (it makes much more money by printing, than it could ever do by taxing or borrowing), the money would have been created by private enterprise, that could compete with other private enterprise on the value of its cash.
Yes, that's how things would work if the government did not want to steal money, but they do, it's profitable, that's why some rob banks - that's where the money is.
Also, let me be the first to inform you that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about when you start ranting about how the government prints and distributes cash.
- that's gold man. The more times you state it, the more correct your statement will become, is that the idea?
How am I a leftie? Because I point out some turd's hypocritical statements? I didn't realize that being a right-leaning libertarian made me a leftie. I'll make sure to make a note about that.
- not a 'leftie', no, I wouldn't insult the normal people on 'the left' this way.
I read the rest of it. His whole thing about Hong Kong ignores the fact that most people in the country were basically exploited wage slaves.
- Hong Kong now has the closest system to free market economy in the world. Wage slaves live in the rest of the world, in the US it's credit slaves now, forget wages. Also it's Hong Kong, not mainland China. This is were people are doing business.
Are you being purposely obtuse, do I have to use a visual aid? Taxes, it's built into the tax code. Property taxes in case of Toronto. Can I avoid paying them without being thrown into the meat grinder that the system has created for such cases as myself?
Given a choice of being forced to pay taxes and to use the only available service, or to pay user fees to some privately held fire-department/police service that would have to compete on the free market, which one would I chose you ask? Really, you are asking me this?
Cop out ? Are you asking me if I am using the fire department service or not? I am answering to you: I am forced to only use the services, since they are already paid by the taxes. What part of 'I am already paying for it' can't you comprehend?
If I had a choice to use competing fire-departments / police departments would I be upset about the extra choices? No. I would gladly pick ones that I am more comfortable with.
Is this comprehensive enough for you?
So you eschew all police and fire services and use no public utilities correct?
- as in do I avoid it? Is it possible to avoid it in society that forces it upon you? Why didn't you ask if I eschew buying political power to gain monetary advantage?
Yes, I am against all forms of socialism/communism that is forced upon me, it's not possible to avoid things that exist, especially if it's government mandated.
When people print money out illegally, it slightly decreases the value of all money by artificially introducing more money into the system without actually introducing more value. ...
Honestly your comprehension of economics reminds me a lot of myself... when I was in 6th grade.
- your reading comprehension is still at the same 6th grade level though.
My point is that it does not matter who prints money, any printing always dilutes the value, the difference between you printing it or the government printing is a legal question, either destroys currency value.
When governments print money, the pretend that it is for a good cause, the truth is far from it, the cause is always the same: politicians want to stay in power, so they 'spread the wealth' in ways, that ensure they stay in power. They print money and devalue the currency of everyone, but they give the printed cash (or electronic cash in case of Bernanke) to preferred corporations/banks. This is the so called 'trickle down' economy from the Reagan's times. Of-course, nothing trickles down to anyone, it stays in the closed loop of people who are very close to the government/top of those corporations. More interestingly, these money, printed by the gov-t at this point are given away at 0% (in US at least, same happened in Japan just a while ago), and then this money is used to buy long term money from the governments, the treasury bills, that yield something like 3-4% for 10 year maturity bills at this point.
So the government gives free money to banks, who use this free money to buy more money at higher yields from the same government. What is ridiculous, is that the money is diluted, while the actual population is not benefiting a cent, the banks are not lending to private corporations/people at normal terms.
I am saying that the government (the federal reserve in the US in this case) has a policy of destroying money's value and the long term of this is total annihilation of the dollar. I am saying that instead of waiting for these fat-cats to do so, just do it yourself, at least you'll have a short term benefit from it and you will hurt their evil fucking scheme a bit. Yeah, I understand how this works, I understand that it does not matter who prints the money, you or the government, it destroys money's value because there is no production behind the printed shit.
Is duplicating government fiat (legal tender) cash illegal if you do not distribute it at all? So if you draw a bunch of hundreds at home, but never use it, is that a crime or art?
I am a stern opponent to anything communist/socialist in nature, being born and raised until the age of 16 back in the non-existent USSR. I am also against this buddy-buddy system, that apparently all of these so called capitalist societies have. There is no principled system anywhere, in the 'communist' countries, it's basically a dictatorship and no free enterprise is allowed to compete with it, because there is no competition, the planned economy is doomed. In the so called 'capitalist' countries now it is all about buying power in the government to push forward agenda of getting free money printed by the government.
Hong Kong seems to be the place where the society came as close as possible to the real free market system, money is created by private entities, there are competing currencies, government can't dilute the value and give preferential treatment to certain corporations, banks, etc. You don't like what one monetary system is doing, move your business to another. I am sure it has its problems, which I am not aware of, since I never lived there, but it seems to be the best out of everything I have seen or hear of so far.
I am not surprised that Brin is the guy who takes the principled stand and I would not be surprised to find out that he came up with the 'no evil' slogan. It's obviously going to be a losing battle, if we know anything about people, they'll fuck up anything until it's dead, look at HP, they used to be the 'no evil' company of engineers. I just remembered the horror stories connected to a professional firm jumping shark-ceo type, Fiorina was her name?
That's the problem, we can't live forever, so our principles die with us and there is nothing much we can do past that to promote our ideals. We try, but looks like we fail in all cases, that's too bad.
Good luck to Brin in this battle, I don't know that even his crazy fortune can fight off this one for too long and I don't know how interested he will be in that once enough pressure is applied from enough people interested in profit motive only.
if you succeed at impaling yourself on a pen and die, then how is the fact that it maybe illegal different from a tree falling in a forest and producing sound-waves if nobody is around to hear them?
I suppose it is a crime to print money if you are not a government and distribute them, but simply print them and not distribute them, not buy anything for that printed cash, how is that illegal?
On the other hand I am against counterfeiting laws altogether, now that every government can print any amount of cash they want (don't even have to print, Bernanke said on a 60 minutes episode that all he has to do is add some zeros on a computer).
Who cares who creates money if it gets created anyway? WHO GIVES A SHIT? If money is printed it dilutes the value of existing money, regardless whether it's the government who prints it or someone at home.
I even believe that someone printing money at home is better for spreading the wealth around than what governments are doing. Governments print money and give the money at 0% at this point to giant banks and various preferred corporations, like weapons contractors. Then this money is used by those banks and corporations in a laundry scheme to buy government long term money - bonds. Who benefited from this devaluation of money?
If you print money at home, at least you can distribute it among people, who would never otherwise get it from the government. At this point printing money privately from my perspective is absolutely not immoral, it sure is illegal, but absolutely not immoral. These fiat money is destroyed by a select group of high ranking individuals, fuck them. Let's all print money until it's worth not more than paper with ink on it. Beat them at their own game I say.
again, did he produce/order/pay for this real child porn? Did he promote abuse of children, did he do anything that would entice someone to abuse children?
Aren't those the questions, not whether he had pictures of child porn? If he actually abused children, if he paid to have porn produced, if he gave someone incentive to produce child porn, then I would agree with you, otherwise this is a witch hunt.
and what is wrong with him having images of any kind of porn, whether it is child or otherwise? Did he order these images? Did he pay for them? Did he produce them?
If he did not order/pay/produce those actual porn images and he found them somewhere on the web and had them on his computer, how does that make him responsible for abusing any actual children, might I ask?
Obviously most of society now believes that he is guilty of abusing children if he is now a sex offender for having images he never produced or paid for.
That is unless I am wrong here and he did produce those images or paid for them. My point is this: did he provide any incentive for abusing children, did he abuse children? Isn't that what sex offense is, actual abuse? This society is wrong.
I don't know if they are really opposed of free exchange of ideas, it's not their country that gave birth to the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They are exchanging all sorts of ideas freely, I mean they do not have a culture that supports copyrights, patents and such, they copy and copy and copy and make things cheap by copying in huge quantities. At some point quantity ends up as quality in its own right.
Soviet science was born out of the older Russian science, this is obviously true, a simple example is Tsiolkovsky, who was the rocket scientist.
Soviet research produced the idea and an implementation of a fusion reactor, TOKAMAK (Tamm and Sakharov).
Lev Landau was a physics superman: quantum physics, superfluids, superconductivity, plasma physics, neutrinos...
Kapitsa, Semenov (first Soviet Nobel prize.)
Amazing discoveries in genetics by Belyaev ( a story was not long ago on this site) who showed how evolution allows creation of different species of animal in very short leaps and does not necessarily require extremely long timeframes. He showed it by selecting for more tame foxes, he ended up with a different animal altogether.
There were discoveries, there were advances, of-course most of the effort was wasted (in my opinion) as always on things of no consequence, like weapons.
Do you mean I am lacking in american culture? That would not be a surprise, as I am not american. On the other hand that 'old saying' is neither true nor witty. Moreover, it looks like that good old american culture didn't do you much good anyway, replying to a reasonable critique with an attempted ad hominem.
You know the old saying, which is true, as well as witty; that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee.
- can you please enlighten us, what part of that statement is true as you said? That a horse was designed? That a camel was designed? That a camel is 'worse' than a horse? Is camel worse than a horse for the environment it lives in?
So that old saying, is it truly true?
You know that it is silly, that every time a new version of FF comes out, every add-on author has to up the version on his code and resubmit to amo? Most of the changes from version to version of FF does not affect most addons at all and yet there is this whole thing with addons having to be resubmitted, wait in the queue for weeks and at the end the only change in the new version is the maxVersion tag in the installation rdf.
On the other hand there is now talk of completely changing the system of interfaces between addons and the browser. Who has time and interest to rewrite the same thing over and over again?
Man evolved into duck. QED.
- well that was sexist.
Are we sure that trolls quack?
it would be totally irrelevant how strong the laser would be, regardless of it's source strength every photon from the source would arrive to the edge in 1 year only but if you spin the source at 360 degrees / 1 s and turn it off at that point, then all you need to do is calculate the number of photons that left the source and divide across the length of the circumference. The calculation of that length is left as an exercise to the reader (I suggest to use Pi in it though.)
But let's say the source infinitely powerful to avoid this question, it' is so powerful that it emits enough photons in one second actually to meaningfully cover the entire length of the circumference. Excellent, let's say that's what it is.
Then here is what it would look like: all points on the circle's circumference would be struck with photons a year after they leave the source,within a fraction of a second from each other as a group.
It would be not much different than if there were multiple light sources shining out of the center onto the edge for a fraction of a second. If the circumference was reflective, then 2 years after the light went out, it would come back tot the center from the edge. So obviously there is no FTL travel or communication between the source and destination points.
Between all the points on the circumference there was no communication of any kind either when the light came in a year later, or when the light came back to the center a year later. So nothing went faster than light. Nobody saw the entire circumference at the moment of light striking it, but the reflection from every point at the edge came 2 years later to the center, and again, nothing was received faster than light anywhere.
What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done.
Take a circle of 1 l.y. radius and turn a laser in the center pointing at the circumference. A year later a dot would appear on the circumference. Now spin the light source 360 degrees in 1 second.
Why would the light at the circumference spin in 1 second if took 1 year for the original light source to appear? Here is a prediction. Once you spin the source of light, the light dot would disappear completely.
You have now divided the intensity of the light in the dot across the circumference to a point where it's not even meaningful. Only a few photons would reach an odd point on the circle's edge a light year after that photon took off the light source. There is no FTL movement of the dot even in this case! Each photon leaving the light source would struck a point at the circle's edge a year later but there will not be enough photons striking any single point to be any different from noise.
The IMAGINARY light dot made it across the circumference at speedsd faster than light, but not a real one.
an apt reader knows I am old enough to find humor in the parent's post where it was not necessarily intended.