As much as I dislike the "Applization" of Windows 8 and some of their really stupid new "features" I have a feeling it will be one of my more used OSes until a good Linux distro comes out like how Ubuntu was until a few years ago. Mint with MATE comes close, but to be honest I'm not sure how well MATE (and Cinnamon, etc.) development is going in regards to fixing bugs and security issues since many GNOME applications will need the new libraries.
Except for the fact that most phones don't really advertise Android. Android really only has clout in the geek-sphere. To many Android = Droid. Heck, AT&T's first Android phone the Backflip didn't even say it ran Android on any of the store displays! MotoBlur, yes. Android? No.
Exactly. There's no reason why my Samsung Captivate Glide should be stuck on Gingerbread.
Similarly, there are people out there with a phone that is on one carrier and has X release of Android while the EXACT same phone on another carrier has the newer Y release of Android.
What good is the source code if you can't build it? I mean, sure it might be -fun- to see how everything is made, but if you really want to contribute something you'd want it to at least work on your machine before you pass it on to others.
Cash 4 Gold tells you that people are willing to part with gold for unfavorable rates, far less than what people paid for gold even when it was $500 an ounce in many cases. The fact that you can go into any town and see two or three "Cash 4 Gold" places means that there is a lot of demand to sell and sell for insanely low rates. When a bubble happens everyone wants to -buy- because they think the prices are going to go up. Look at all the people who kept buying rental property and second homes back when the housing bubble reached its climax. When the.com bubble happened, everyone wanted to either start a.com or invest in a.com. Today we don't see that, we have the chant from the masses that gold is overvalued, silver is overvalued, etc. the exact same thing we've heard when Gold was $500 and silver was $10.
No, a government backed currency is better than an unbacked currency unbacked by a government. A backed currency is better than an unbacked currency backed by a government. A backed currency backed by the government would be ideal.
Inflation is much more destructive than deflation. PMs are only deflationary up to a point where it makes sense to mine some more. For example, if it costs $50 to get one ounce of silver from scrap electronics, it will only be profitable to do that when silver is over $50 an ounce. So while the silver price is below $50, that pool is essentially untapped. If deflation happens, the pool of available methods to get the PMs increases.
Inflation acts as a silent tax, a theft of wealth. A way to dishonestly pay for bills.
Yep, a casino is a form of entertainment. What's the difference between me playing the penny slots and me playing Area-51 (that game was awesome back in the day, don't know if they still have it) at the local pizza joint?
The only reason why fake (fiat) currencies are popular is that it allows you to pay the thugs (government) the money they rob from you (taxation). Other than that, physical things like precious metals, copper, etc. are much, much better.
Bitcoin is an interesting experiment in cryptography, but isn't backed by anything. Why would I accept bitcoin?
...which was the same argument that people used when Gold was $400, $600, $800, $1000, etc.
For the masses gold is always "overpriced", its always the "wrong time to buy" no matter what the price is.
Gold is not in a mania phase, if it was in a mania phase you'd see "Gold 4 Cash" not "Cash 4 Gold".
Gold, and silver to a lesser extent is a terrible investment. Gold (and silver to a lesser extent) is money. Only other than holding US dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs, etc. governments can't print more at their whim.
Legal tender only means that you have to accept it for debts denoted in that currency. For example, if I send you a bill for 100 US dollars you can pay for it in any way you want so long as it is legal tender and I cannot sue you for non-payment, whether that is 10 rolls of quarters, a single $100 bill, or 2 $50 bills.
However, when someone is ringing you up at a cash register, no debt has occurred. Meaning the person at the cash register can refuse payment in legal tender and might accept only gold, silver, copper, bills under $50, etc.
Similarly, you are allowed to have debts in other currencies such as Euros or gold. In fact, prior to FDR's decision to confiscate the wealth of America by taking it off of the true gold standard, it was common practice to put in a "gold clause" meaning that you could demand payment in either dollars, or the equivalent amount in gold. For example, someone might get paid $10 an hour but have a gold clause in saying that they could be paid with 0.48375 troy ounces of gold (the equivalent in gold back when the US was on a gold standard). Gold clauses are enforceable today on contracts made since 1977 when Americans were finally allowed to own gold.
Because what he is being tried for doesn't count as rape pretty much anywhere but Sweden. It would be a bit like if Canada decided to count assault as murder and reporting to a primarily Brazilian audience that someone was being tried in Canada for murder when it bears no resemblance to the crime of murder in Brazil.
Hopefully Assange gets protection in Ecuador soon and can continue his work rather than having to face baseless and hilariously named smears by the Swedish "legal" system.
So let's see here, let's say there's an "illegal" immigrant, let's call him Pablo. Pablo works for $3 an hour to pick tomatoes. Pablo can do as good as job as Bob who is a white American and works for $7.25 an hour, the Federal minimum wage. I enjoy eating tomatoes. Anything that reduces the prices of tomatoes raises my standard of living, 2 "illegal" immigrants can do the same amount of work picking tomatoes as a single "legal" citizen thus reducing the price of tomatoes.
The idea that the money Pablo makes doesn't raise my standard of living is also flawed. Whether Pablo spends it in the US, Mexico, China or trades it with Martians is irrelevant because, I, along with just about everyone who resides on this earth, is an international consumer. My house contains American, Canadian, Chinese, Chilean, Mexican, British, Japanese, etc. products, I buy these things because they raise my standard of living. So no matter who Pablo is "supporting" chances are it can raise my standard of living.
"Free" healthcare in and of itself is a deceptive scam and often fraud and is in dire need of reform. Taxation is theft and I heartily applaud those who manage to avoid it just as I'd applaud someone who shot a robber in their home.
The Geneva convention is routinely ignored, the US constitution is routinely ignored, any UN "declaration" is always ignored, etc. What good is another set of "regulations" that will be ignored?
What needs to happen is people need to wake up and realize the constant theme of history, war creates war, violence creates violence. Only free trade and respect for human liberties create peace.
Peacetime? The US has only been at "peace" for a handful of years in its history, the rest of the years it has been fighting people abroad such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. People within its own borders (Indian wars) or arming, training and supporting violence in other countries ("war on drugs"). By abolishing peacetime, the government is allowed to ransack our liberties, steal our income even more and stifle dissent. Keep in mind we are still under a state of emergency because of "terrorism" first enacted by Bush and then extended every year by Obama.
Right, because I forgot about all these huge "terrorist" plots to kill the 10th in line to the presidency. The idea that there are all these "terrorists" plotting to destroy the world is simply unsubstantiated.
I think the author of this article has been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. Of course Clinton and Panetta are going to get protection, people know who they are and they actually do stuff. How many people even know that Bryson was the secretary of commerce. Heck, does the average American even know there was a secretary of commerce?
Just because something is possible doesn't mean its likely. A nuclear bomb detonated in Washington DC creates far more problems than a "headless" government because having a "headless" government really means nothing when it comes to an emergency.
Order would be disrupted in most areas, but last time I checked most police officers don't take orders direct from Washington meaning that it wouldn't make much difference if a "suitcase nuke" was detonated in Washington DC or another metropolitan area.
Iran is a terrible government (heck, all governments are terrible) but their international relations are much nicer than the US. The last major war that Iran fought was against Iraq, who invaded Iran in the 1980s. The last major war that the US fought was against Iraq which was several thousand miles away from the US. Last time I checked, Iran didn't have friendly drones in other countries constantly bombing them and writing off civilian casualties as being "terrorists".
Iran isn't good, they have a terrible record of human rights and generally have a dictatorship. However, their foreign policy is a heck of a lot more friendly than the US.
Ah yes, because I'm really happy that an elected guy is following the lead of those who are non-elected!
The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral. To maintain diplomatic relations to all nations, free trade (unrestricted trade, not the NAFTA crap) with all nations and have a small defense force to guard against attacks and invasions (and no, that doesn't mean having a military base in every country under the sun).
Worried about a nuclear Iran? Yes. Worried about a nuclear US, China, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel? Yes.
Nuclear weapons are terrible and I don't trust -any- government to refrain from the use of them, either as threats to bully others or actually using them as terrorist weapons like the US did in Japan.
Really, I'm no more worried that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons than I am that the US, France and India have nuclear weapons.
However, there is a double standard. Iran is trying its best to be recognized by the international community as a modern Islamic democracy, Obama is looking for more blood to put on his Nobel Peace Prize. The American public on both sides of the political aisle are crying out for another war and even the smallest thing could set off a "drone war" leading to a full-scale conflict.
When the US uses "cyber-terrorism" its portrayed as a heroic action. If Iran does the same thing to the US, we'd use it as an excuse to start yet -another- costly, expensive, and needless war.
Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I dislike the "Applization" of Windows 8 and some of their really stupid new "features" I have a feeling it will be one of my more used OSes until a good Linux distro comes out like how Ubuntu was until a few years ago. Mint with MATE comes close, but to be honest I'm not sure how well MATE (and Cinnamon, etc.) development is going in regards to fixing bugs and security issues since many GNOME applications will need the new libraries.
Someone, please make a Ubuntu for 2012!
Except for the fact that most phones don't really advertise Android. Android really only has clout in the geek-sphere. To many Android = Droid. Heck, AT&T's first Android phone the Backflip didn't even say it ran Android on any of the store displays! MotoBlur, yes. Android? No.
Exactly. There's no reason why my Samsung Captivate Glide should be stuck on Gingerbread.
Similarly, there are people out there with a phone that is on one carrier and has X release of Android while the EXACT same phone on another carrier has the newer Y release of Android.
What good is the source code if you can't build it? I mean, sure it might be -fun- to see how everything is made, but if you really want to contribute something you'd want it to at least work on your machine before you pass it on to others.
Cash 4 Gold tells you that people are willing to part with gold for unfavorable rates, far less than what people paid for gold even when it was $500 an ounce in many cases. The fact that you can go into any town and see two or three "Cash 4 Gold" places means that there is a lot of demand to sell and sell for insanely low rates. When a bubble happens everyone wants to -buy- because they think the prices are going to go up. Look at all the people who kept buying rental property and second homes back when the housing bubble reached its climax. When the .com bubble happened, everyone wanted to either start a .com or invest in a .com. Today we don't see that, we have the chant from the masses that gold is overvalued, silver is overvalued, etc. the exact same thing we've heard when Gold was $500 and silver was $10.
No, a government backed currency is better than an unbacked currency unbacked by a government. A backed currency is better than an unbacked currency backed by a government. A backed currency backed by the government would be ideal.
Inflation is much more destructive than deflation. PMs are only deflationary up to a point where it makes sense to mine some more. For example, if it costs $50 to get one ounce of silver from scrap electronics, it will only be profitable to do that when silver is over $50 an ounce. So while the silver price is below $50, that pool is essentially untapped. If deflation happens, the pool of available methods to get the PMs increases.
Inflation acts as a silent tax, a theft of wealth. A way to dishonestly pay for bills.
Yep, a casino is a form of entertainment. What's the difference between me playing the penny slots and me playing Area-51 (that game was awesome back in the day, don't know if they still have it) at the local pizza joint?
A benefit in a way, but not that much.
The only reason why fake (fiat) currencies are popular is that it allows you to pay the thugs (government) the money they rob from you (taxation). Other than that, physical things like precious metals, copper, etc. are much, much better.
Bitcoin is an interesting experiment in cryptography, but isn't backed by anything. Why would I accept bitcoin?
...which was the same argument that people used when Gold was $400, $600, $800, $1000, etc.
For the masses gold is always "overpriced", its always the "wrong time to buy" no matter what the price is.
Gold is not in a mania phase, if it was in a mania phase you'd see "Gold 4 Cash" not "Cash 4 Gold".
Gold, and silver to a lesser extent is a terrible investment. Gold (and silver to a lesser extent) is money. Only other than holding US dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs, etc. governments can't print more at their whim.
No.
Legal tender only means that you have to accept it for debts denoted in that currency. For example, if I send you a bill for 100 US dollars you can pay for it in any way you want so long as it is legal tender and I cannot sue you for non-payment, whether that is 10 rolls of quarters, a single $100 bill, or 2 $50 bills. However, when someone is ringing you up at a cash register, no debt has occurred. Meaning the person at the cash register can refuse payment in legal tender and might accept only gold, silver, copper, bills under $50, etc.
Similarly, you are allowed to have debts in other currencies such as Euros or gold. In fact, prior to FDR's decision to confiscate the wealth of America by taking it off of the true gold standard, it was common practice to put in a "gold clause" meaning that you could demand payment in either dollars, or the equivalent amount in gold. For example, someone might get paid $10 an hour but have a gold clause in saying that they could be paid with 0.48375 troy ounces of gold (the equivalent in gold back when the US was on a gold standard). Gold clauses are enforceable today on contracts made since 1977 when Americans were finally allowed to own gold.
Because what he is being tried for doesn't count as rape pretty much anywhere but Sweden. It would be a bit like if Canada decided to count assault as murder and reporting to a primarily Brazilian audience that someone was being tried in Canada for murder when it bears no resemblance to the crime of murder in Brazil.
Hopefully Assange gets protection in Ecuador soon and can continue his work rather than having to face baseless and hilariously named smears by the Swedish "legal" system.
So let's see here, let's say there's an "illegal" immigrant, let's call him Pablo. Pablo works for $3 an hour to pick tomatoes. Pablo can do as good as job as Bob who is a white American and works for $7.25 an hour, the Federal minimum wage. I enjoy eating tomatoes. Anything that reduces the prices of tomatoes raises my standard of living, 2 "illegal" immigrants can do the same amount of work picking tomatoes as a single "legal" citizen thus reducing the price of tomatoes.
The idea that the money Pablo makes doesn't raise my standard of living is also flawed. Whether Pablo spends it in the US, Mexico, China or trades it with Martians is irrelevant because, I, along with just about everyone who resides on this earth, is an international consumer. My house contains American, Canadian, Chinese, Chilean, Mexican, British, Japanese, etc. products, I buy these things because they raise my standard of living. So no matter who Pablo is "supporting" chances are it can raise my standard of living.
"Free" healthcare in and of itself is a deceptive scam and often fraud and is in dire need of reform. Taxation is theft and I heartily applaud those who manage to avoid it just as I'd applaud someone who shot a robber in their home.
When will we realize that immigrants, "legal" and otherwise do not cause problems but rather raise the standard of living for -everyone-?
The Geneva convention is routinely ignored, the US constitution is routinely ignored, any UN "declaration" is always ignored, etc. What good is another set of "regulations" that will be ignored?
What needs to happen is people need to wake up and realize the constant theme of history, war creates war, violence creates violence. Only free trade and respect for human liberties create peace.
Peacetime? The US has only been at "peace" for a handful of years in its history, the rest of the years it has been fighting people abroad such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. People within its own borders (Indian wars) or arming, training and supporting violence in other countries ("war on drugs"). By abolishing peacetime, the government is allowed to ransack our liberties, steal our income even more and stifle dissent. Keep in mind we are still under a state of emergency because of "terrorism" first enacted by Bush and then extended every year by Obama.
Right, because I forgot about all these huge "terrorist" plots to kill the 10th in line to the presidency. The idea that there are all these "terrorists" plotting to destroy the world is simply unsubstantiated.
I think the author of this article has been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. Of course Clinton and Panetta are going to get protection, people know who they are and they actually do stuff. How many people even know that Bryson was the secretary of commerce. Heck, does the average American even know there was a secretary of commerce?
Just because something is possible doesn't mean its likely. A nuclear bomb detonated in Washington DC creates far more problems than a "headless" government because having a "headless" government really means nothing when it comes to an emergency.
Order would be disrupted in most areas, but last time I checked most police officers don't take orders direct from Washington meaning that it wouldn't make much difference if a "suitcase nuke" was detonated in Washington DC or another metropolitan area.
Iran is a terrible government (heck, all governments are terrible) but their international relations are much nicer than the US. The last major war that Iran fought was against Iraq, who invaded Iran in the 1980s. The last major war that the US fought was against Iraq which was several thousand miles away from the US. Last time I checked, Iran didn't have friendly drones in other countries constantly bombing them and writing off civilian casualties as being "terrorists".
Iran isn't good, they have a terrible record of human rights and generally have a dictatorship. However, their foreign policy is a heck of a lot more friendly than the US.
Ah yes, because I'm really happy that an elected guy is following the lead of those who are non-elected!
The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral. To maintain diplomatic relations to all nations, free trade (unrestricted trade, not the NAFTA crap) with all nations and have a small defense force to guard against attacks and invasions (and no, that doesn't mean having a military base in every country under the sun).
Worried about a nuclear Iran? Yes. Worried about a nuclear US, China, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel? Yes.
Nuclear weapons are terrible and I don't trust -any- government to refrain from the use of them, either as threats to bully others or actually using them as terrorist weapons like the US did in Japan.
Really, I'm no more worried that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons than I am that the US, France and India have nuclear weapons.
And Herpes is better than AIDS, doesn't mean I want either of them.
Plus, last time I checked, Bush wasn't running in 2008.
Ah yes, Obama the man of peace. You know the one that decided to start another war in Libya...
However, there is a double standard. Iran is trying its best to be recognized by the international community as a modern Islamic democracy, Obama is looking for more blood to put on his Nobel Peace Prize. The American public on both sides of the political aisle are crying out for another war and even the smallest thing could set off a "drone war" leading to a full-scale conflict.
Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!
2009 Peace Prize: goes to Obama
for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples
2010: Let's bomb Pakistan with even more drones!
2011: Let's bomb Libya!
2012: Let's use "cyber-terrorism" against Iran!
When the US uses "cyber-terrorism" its portrayed as a heroic action. If Iran does the same thing to the US, we'd use it as an excuse to start yet -another- costly, expensive, and needless war.
Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?