That is an interesting one. As far as I understand it, they did not steal from individuals, but from the bank. Off course this is the same as grabbing from someone else's savings, but so is fractional reserve banking. So in a way, if your bank does it, it is normal, if someone else does it, all of a sudden it is criminal.
When I was camping in a forest, I saw somebody who had mounted a wall socket on a tree, put his shaving mirror on top of it, and plugged his (rechargable) electric razor into it and shaved himself, so it looked like the razor was powered by the tree.
I think the term slipped in because in the choice between "Venture capitalist" and "Vulture capitalist", the latter clearly sounds more appropriate (vultures already arrive if the animal is not dead yet). "Venture capitalist" sounds as if nothing is wrong with it.
Speed ridges only work at subsonic speed, to make the boundary layer turbulent so it "sticks" better to the surface. A rocket is not a golf ball. On the other hand, wrinkles only have impact on the speed and distance it can cover, not on the deadliness.
It is this "Lucky shot" kind of "justice" that makes the U.S. justice system a boring joke around the world. Off course there is always the possibility that you sue somebody for something that turns out not to be applicable, but just suing (and therefore financially draining) a victim just to see what he may be accused of is just criminal.
There, fixed that for you. Or do you get a receipt from Microsoft when you buy a PC from the shop around the corner?. No home user does any business with Microsoft, but Microsoft likes to say so whenever that is convenient for them. And deny it when it is not convenient (like, if you refuse the license and want your money back).
First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy (hence the name. They invest private money (that of their owners/shareholders) into equity by buying firms). If they didn't banks would be rightly suspicious of the deal since the private equity firm would get paid no matter what happened.
Not exactly. They invest some "own" money and borrow the rest from a bank. The bank has no conscience either, so it is also in it. It is a kind of slavery where the slaves have to pay for their own chains.
Second, because of this, it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well. In theory, if the PE firm bought a controlling share (say 51%) they would be in a position to screw over the remaining 49%, for example by selling the firm's assets to some other company owned by the PE firm, at a discount rate. This would most likely be illegal. Apart from this mechanism, the interests of the PE firm are exactly the same as the remaining shareholders: to get as much money from the firm as possible.
Now you contradict yourself. The goal is to squeeze as money as possible out of the victim. That is not the same as having that firm run well. On the contrary. The victim is squeezed dry, and the predators go on to the next victim.
Finally, if it is more profitable to sell a companies assets and fire all its workers, then this is a good thing. If you don't already believe this then I don't have space to prove it in this post, but the general idea is that labor and capital are just like any other commodity, and so a company whose share price today is less than the value of its in place assets, is like a giant inefficient machine that consumes capital and labor for what is effectively negative profit.
Capital is just a number typed in a computer if a bank is part of the robbers. Labour is a need in society. Seeing it as a commodity is downright evil. That "commodity" was the very thought that was the basis of the Enclosure.
There is not that much to know about a catapult. And with an arm-piece and a trigger they can be made quite accurate, and (armed with an M24 nut) more destructive than your basic pistol.
When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
Hell no, imagine all the medical staff who are kept in the dark because time is of essence and the DRM key is not there. Imagine your data leaked in DRM'ed format, so every hacker can have a go at it. Leaking sensitive information is a completely separate problem. DRM is just an envelope. A problematic one for whoever means good, and a laughable one for whoever means bad. Sensitive information should not be leaked PERIOD. Not DRM'ed, not auto-destructing (if you believe that is possible). DRM is no answer to leaks or security issues.
When you work under SEC rules and have to provide your financial statements to management for compliance, wouldn't you want control over where/when those can be viewed?
Off course not. Management is usually digitally challenged, so you can trust management to treat keys in the worst possible fashion imaginable. So they probably cannot read it anyway AND have published the key in a random social network site before you even know there is a key. If you cannot trust management to deal with sensitive information, you have a completely different problem. DRM will not help you there either. The only thing DRM does is break and annoy by design.
I am an advocate of fiat money, but that is because I fear deflation more than inflation.
I am not against it, but it all depends how the money is created. Currently, money is created through loans that bear interest. So effectively, we can only create money by reducing the total money supply in the end. Unless off course, we loan more and more, which will eventually collapse into a deep crisis with lots of defaults. Which is the current state. Also, a loan is "nothing". It is just a number that may represent the asset that you want the loan for, but for the bank it is just a number (and yes, they have to get another number from a central bank, but that is just a minor detail)
I am not against the government printing money. On the contrary, I think the government (as a representative of society) should be the only one who can print money. But money should be printed "at a cost or value". So you do something for society, and society rewards you for it. Let's face it, humans are social animals (even if people think that is an insult on the other side of the pond). So we need a society with common things, like infrastructure and healthcare. If you reward people's contribution toward society with money, and the members of society can use that money among themselves, this money becomes its own "tax", and will therefore by very definition have value (the value of that contribution to society). In such a case (like the Japanese "care coin", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fureai_kippu), the money is used as the glue of society instead of the separating wedge it is used for today in western countries.
I was thinking along other lines. Could you build a "temporary" gun, so it will cease to exist as evidence? Some plastics can be broken down or melted and re-used as a garden gnome quite easily. It won't help you one bit if you own a gun because of the dangerous wildlife, but it would be ideal for criminals. Evidence? What evidence?
True. In the Netherlands, even catapults are forbidden. That law was passed not because of the child toys, but because of the professional ones (with arm-piece and visor) that are more effective than your average gun when loaded with a heavy nut. Why would a gun be harder to regulate?
In fact, a lot of money is simply dreamt into existence nowadays. This is how it works:
Be a bank or collaborate with one
Loan an astronomical sum. The bank will just type the astronomical number into their computer and *POOF*, the money exists.
It is really so simple? Yes, but a central bank has to do the same, 'cause they have the right to do so. So the bank loans from the central bank, but that is just an annoying detail.
Use this made-up nothing to buy a company, or, preferably, an entire sector (like child care in the Netherlands)
It helps to pay the existing company leaders huge bonuses. Otherwise, they might not want to sell.
Put an enormous burden on those companies. They have to pay the "money" back!
[...] (optional dots. Seem to go with these kind of lists)
"Profit!" Or should I say: "Fraud!" ?
And nothing of value was gained. Only lost. For society, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeat after me: "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good". Gee, read the manual!
I read about it a week ago, but I think nobody could see it back then...
On the contrary. It was the W3C who announced there would never be an HTML5. It was the WHATWG who took over the task that the W3C bluntly refused.
That is an interesting one. As far as I understand it, they did not steal from individuals, but from the bank. Off course this is the same as grabbing from someone else's savings, but so is fractional reserve banking. So in a way, if your bank does it, it is normal, if someone else does it, all of a sudden it is criminal.
When I was camping in a forest, I saw somebody who had mounted a wall socket on a tree, put his shaving mirror on top of it, and plugged his (rechargable) electric razor into it and shaved himself, so it looked like the razor was powered by the tree.
I think the term slipped in because in the choice between "Venture capitalist" and "Vulture capitalist", the latter clearly sounds more appropriate (vultures already arrive if the animal is not dead yet). "Venture capitalist" sounds as if nothing is wrong with it.
Speed ridges only work at subsonic speed, to make the boundary layer turbulent so it "sticks" better to the surface. A rocket is not a golf ball. On the other hand, wrinkles only have impact on the speed and distance it can cover, not on the deadliness.
"I guess we'll find out when we go to trial.'"
It is this "Lucky shot" kind of "justice" that makes the U.S. justice system a boring joke around the world. Off course there is always the possibility that you sue somebody for something that turns out not to be applicable, but just suing (and therefore financially draining) a victim just to see what he may be accused of is just criminal.
I don't know. Was Windows 8 just a pirated Ubuntu "Unity" or is Unity a pirated Windows?
That is the similarity.
There, fixed that for you. Or do you get a receipt from Microsoft when you buy a PC from the shop around the corner?. No home user does any business with Microsoft, but Microsoft likes to say so whenever that is convenient for them. And deny it when it is not convenient (like, if you refuse the license and want your money back).
First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy (hence the name. They invest private money (that of their owners/shareholders) into equity by buying firms). If they didn't banks would be rightly suspicious of the deal since the private equity firm would get paid no matter what happened.
Not exactly. They invest some "own" money and borrow the rest from a bank. The bank has no conscience either, so it is also in it. It is a kind of slavery where the slaves have to pay for their own chains.
Second, because of this, it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well. In theory, if the PE firm bought a controlling share (say 51%) they would be in a position to screw over the remaining 49%, for example by selling the firm's assets to some other company owned by the PE firm, at a discount rate. This would most likely be illegal. Apart from this mechanism, the interests of the PE firm are exactly the same as the remaining shareholders: to get as much money from the firm as possible.
Now you contradict yourself. The goal is to squeeze as money as possible out of the victim. That is not the same as having that firm run well. On the contrary. The victim is squeezed dry, and the predators go on to the next victim.
Finally, if it is more profitable to sell a companies assets and fire all its workers, then this is a good thing. If you don't already believe this then I don't have space to prove it in this post, but the general idea is that labor and capital are just like any other commodity, and so a company whose share price today is less than the value of its in place assets, is like a giant inefficient machine that consumes capital and labor for what is effectively negative profit.
Capital is just a number typed in a computer if a bank is part of the robbers. Labour is a need in society. Seeing it as a commodity is downright evil. That "commodity" was the very thought that was the basis of the Enclosure.
Please enlighten me, what do the Canadians have to do with it?
There is not that much to know about a catapult. And with an arm-piece and a trigger they can be made quite accurate, and (armed with an M24 nut) more destructive than your basic pistol.
No. That would be discrimination. Require an English test for all students period. I wonder how many native Americans would be rejected this way.
When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
Hell no, imagine all the medical staff who are kept in the dark because time is of essence and the DRM key is not there. Imagine your data leaked in DRM'ed format, so every hacker can have a go at it. Leaking sensitive information is a completely separate problem. DRM is just an envelope. A problematic one for whoever means good, and a laughable one for whoever means bad. Sensitive information should not be leaked PERIOD. Not DRM'ed, not auto-destructing (if you believe that is possible). DRM is no answer to leaks or security issues.
When you work under SEC rules and have to provide your financial statements to management for compliance, wouldn't you want control over where/when those can be viewed?
Off course not. Management is usually digitally challenged, so you can trust management to treat keys in the worst possible fashion imaginable. So they probably cannot read it anyway AND have published the key in a random social network site before you even know there is a key. If you cannot trust management to deal with sensitive information, you have a completely different problem. DRM will not help you there either. The only thing DRM does is break and annoy by design.
And the same politicians will wine "that never again" on liberation day (May 5th).
I wonder, are people in violation if they really build that road and give it that name because it is seen as "planned"?
I am an advocate of fiat money, but that is because I fear deflation more than inflation.
I am not against it, but it all depends how the money is created. Currently, money is created through loans that bear interest. So effectively, we can only create money by reducing the total money supply in the end. Unless off course, we loan more and more, which will eventually collapse into a deep crisis with lots of defaults. Which is the current state. Also, a loan is "nothing". It is just a number that may represent the asset that you want the loan for, but for the bank it is just a number (and yes, they have to get another number from a central bank, but that is just a minor detail)
I am not against the government printing money. On the contrary, I think the government (as a representative of society) should be the only one who can print money. But money should be printed "at a cost or value". So you do something for society, and society rewards you for it. Let's face it, humans are social animals (even if people think that is an insult on the other side of the pond). So we need a society with common things, like infrastructure and healthcare. If you reward people's contribution toward society with money, and the members of society can use that money among themselves, this money becomes its own "tax", and will therefore by very definition have value (the value of that contribution to society). In such a case (like the Japanese "care coin", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fureai_kippu), the money is used as the glue of society instead of the separating wedge it is used for today in western countries.
ARPAnet?
I was thinking along other lines. Could you build a "temporary" gun, so it will cease to exist as evidence? Some plastics can be broken down or melted and re-used as a garden gnome quite easily. It won't help you one bit if you own a gun because of the dangerous wildlife, but it would be ideal for criminals. Evidence? What evidence?
True. In the Netherlands, even catapults are forbidden. That law was passed not because of the child toys, but because of the professional ones (with arm-piece and visor) that are more effective than your average gun when loaded with a heavy nut. Why would a gun be harder to regulate?
I am an idiot.
Should I mod that as informative or as insightful?
In fact, a lot of money is simply dreamt into existence nowadays. This is how it works:
And nothing of value was gained. Only lost. For society, that is.
Correct.At the last line on the page, there is a link to the statement: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariadb/
in a country that has Google, Apple,...
in a country that has Google, Apple, and the cattle that simply adores them, nothing is insane.