So, far, you have done nothing but say that it is ok for china to do this, but you really do not answer real quesitons.
No, that is a misunderstanding. My main point is this: I said it is ok for china to do whatever they want with their currency because it is their currency. The last part is important. What would you say if an european president with a backbone intended to "do something" about the falling dollar?
You seem to feel that it is ok for China to tie their money to ours and prevent us from competing?
To be clear: I feel that it is ok for china to define or value their currency however they want. I do not believe that it is ok to prevent others from competing, but tying ones currency to another tangible property is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable policy, the government is essentially just saying "we are willing to give you this much of $whatever in exchange for one yuan". The US did the same with gold, even thought gold was probably a valid currency in other countries at that time.
Why should we not have the right to do the same to China or to simply say no more trading with China until they free up the exchange rate?
It is perfectly ok to do the same to China. go ahead, tie the dollar to the yuan.
Of course that won't suffice, for this strategy to work you would have to tie your currency to something that is rapidely loosing in value. It would probably be easier to adapt federal funds rates and other factors so that the currency falls on its own. In fact that sounds like a familiar strategy to me.
In small nations, tying of the money to us is not a big deal. But it becomes a big deal when the nation is much bigger then us and prevent us from real competition
To me that sounds like you are saying it is ok for other countries to have their own fiscal policy, but just as long as it does not interfere with you?
Even now, Chinese gov. looks the other way on factories send the IP to other factories and producing illegal copies of items.
Sure, and they allow child labor. But that is a completely different matter than their currency, and if they let their currency float that would not change. China can be blamed for a lot of things. But why internal fiscal policy?
So, if the next president says enough is enough, why is that wrong with that?
I may have misunderstood you there. Whether it is ok or not depends entirely on what he does about it. The previous US policies included such things as funding insurgents, toppling governments, installing puppet regimes, putting pressure on unrelated nations to enforce embargos and of course outright invading. In your initial post you simply said that the president should "do something about it", and I can think of a lot of things wrong with that.
But if you simply suggest some flavor of protectionism, i do not mind that much. Protectionism is not be very civilised, and I believe stopping all trade with china would hurt the US more than China, but it would be an interesting experiment for sure.
What a country does with its currency is their business. The US would have been rightly upset if another country had forced them to abandon the gold standard when they had it, or forced them to keep it when they abandoned it. The US government did what they thougth was best for them, and so does china.
So if china says the yuan is worth the same as 7 dollars, or 3 pesos, or 10 bananas, and if they have to means to guarantee that value, that is their right, and it does not matter whether the dollar is "your" currency or the bananas are from argentinia. No one is forcing you to accept yuans.
I just do not understand this attitude of yours, that the president should "do something" about the internal politics of another country. Sadly, the current president shares this attitude.
Look, America, and shortly European, jobs have migrated to China. Why? Because they have the yuan tied to the dollar. If we had a president with backbone, they would do something about it.
Dude, it is their currency, they can tie it to whatever arbitrary value they want. What is a president to do, tie the dollar to half the value of the yuan in revenge? Or double the value? Or simply invade?
How can we actually detect the magnetic field of another star? I thought that the distance is certainly too big to observe it directly, and we barely have the resolution to tell that there is a planet there at all.
One thing is to make a person who decides to smoke pay more, as it is a conscious decision of that person, and that person could give up smoking to avoid higher fees
Actually a recent study claims that while the per-year health care cost of smokers is higher, the total lifetime cost is lower than for non-smokers.
Evolution is not a religion. It is not a guide for the proper way to live. It does not provide any of the answers for deciding this problem.
Just because Mother Nature does something one way, does not mean that this is somehow the best, most proper, fairest, smartest, long-term safest way, or that it has any other advantage except for the short-term survival-of-the-fittest well-not-actually-you-but-at-least-your-genes kind.
Mother Nature is a bitch.
You can argue to what degree humans should care and provide for other humans in a society, but do not use evolution as an excuse.
There are no geostationary orbits that stay behind the moon. But we could maybe put a satellite in a Lissajous orbit around the lagrange point L2 behind the moon.
To send signals back you would need a relay satelite thougth
If someone wanted to foil current as well as new security measures and as a bonus create chaos in an airport with almost no risk, he would simply have to distribute traces of powdered explosives or drugs or other chemicals they search for somewhere near the entrance.
This would be a simple as dragging a sligthly leaking luggage bag around outside the building, and with all the other travelers hauling luggage won't be noticed for sure.
Whether the airport uses spectroscopy, dogs, or other sensors, everyone who walks trough that powder will trigger the alarm, more so than a terrorist that actively tried to remove all traces from himself.
The neccesary technology is conceivable, but this level of terraforming is at least a few decades into the future, and will probably take centuries to work.
This is far faster than atmospheric loss due to the low gravity on mars, which takes millions of years.
It is however far slower than the current pollution of our atmosphere.
Also note that however bad global warming is, earth will never become as inhospitable as mars throught it. The scale is totally different. I have no doubt that we can keep earth atmosphere in a state were most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation, far easier than we can transform mars atmosphere into one where most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation. But I think we should aim a bit higher on earth.
These atmosphere-stripping processes work on a timescale several orders of magnitude larger than any reasonable terraforming process.
If we find a practical way to generate a habitable environment on mars, one that does not take longer than a few million years, then we also can replenish the atmosphere much faster than it leaves.
include a custom string in the message id of mails that you send. Thunderbirds and most other mailers offer some way to do this.
Whitelist everything that contains this string, blacklist everything else from your address
In addition, most mails that are replies to one of your mails will contain your message id in its references header, so by whitelisting this string, you also prevent falsely classifying those as spam.
Just like food sold must include a list of incgredients, fat content, etc so should certain groups of products have to include a list of guaranted minimum quantities offered, or your money back
Any advert that references these quantities, in the form of "unlimited", "up to 100 gb" "up to 500% faster" etc. would have to disclose the minima too.
Companies would still be free to promise the sky. But since they would need to at least define a guaranted lower bound, customers would knew a number they could rely on, and compare products based on those.
A simple solution for this is to shorten the time before the work falls into public domain.
Eventually your copyright will expire anyway. If you add a clause that says the source is relicensed under public domain [in 10 years | after your death | something else], then it can always outlive your personal work, before it falls into oblivion.
public domain is compatible with any license. And if someone wants to use the source under a different license sooner, they can always contact you.
I still prefer win2k or win2k3, not as much clutter to disable, less noncritical updates to test. Win2k runs with less ram, and win2k3 has everything xp has, with more sane defaults.
the only thing xp seems to be good at are notebooks, with the energy options and improved wireless in sp2.
Also, by running for president the candidates give up most of their own privacy. Their past will be scrutinized, their associates drilled for secrets, everything they say will be protocolled, every mistake reported in the media the next day.
Anyone willing to put up with that does not value his own privacy very high, so is unlikely to value others right to privacy much either.
it also sucks if you want to have any choice in viewing or printing the document, for example a larger font size or a different paper format, since that would require repagination.
Can we require candidates for public office to take the test? how can you expect your leaders to protect your privacy if you require them not to care about theirs?
Anyone willing to run for public office under these conditions is by definition someone who does not mind such mandatory tests for a job or insurance.
In fact, I think this is the major reason politicans do so little to protect privacy: they do not have much of their own left. If someone minds having their every move observed, with every embarassing thing made public, they will not run for public office.
I disagree that this is "purely for tracking purposes". A side effect is certainly to make the full version more attractive.
There are a lot of people for whom such a "simple registration" is more than they can handle. An unknown dialog box poping up is for them always a sign of something wrong, no matter the contents.
If your less computer-literate friends do not call you in those cases, you probably are far more selective with your friends than I. That does not mean they are stupid, just not versed with computers.
User-friendly would be if those products had a warning before installation "this product wil stop working once each year until you repeat an arbitrary and annoying procedure" Then i could either prepare my friends for that or stop recommending tht product altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course that won't suffice, for this strategy to work you would have to tie your currency to something that is rapidely loosing in value. It would probably be easier to adapt federal funds rates and other factors so that the currency falls on its own. In fact that sounds like a familiar strategy to me. To me that sounds like you are saying it is ok for other countries to have their own fiscal policy, but just as long as it does not interfere with you? Sure, and they allow child labor. But that is a completely different matter than their currency, and if they let their currency float that would not change. China can be blamed for a lot of things. But why internal fiscal policy?I may have misunderstood you there. Whether it is ok or not depends entirely on what he does about it. The previous US policies included such things as funding insurgents, toppling governments, installing puppet regimes, putting pressure on unrelated nations to enforce embargos and of course outright invading.
In your initial post you simply said that the president should "do something about it", and I can think of a lot of things wrong with that.
But if you simply suggest some flavor of protectionism, i do not mind that much. Protectionism is not be very civilised, and I believe stopping all trade with china would hurt the US more than China, but it would be an interesting experiment for sure.
So it is ok for them to do so, but not for China?
China might as well turn back the blame and claim the US is actively keeping the dollar in free-fall to undercut trade with the rest of the world.
And of course all this would not even be an issue if the dollar was not falling like a rock.
What a country does with its currency is their business. The US would have been rightly upset if another country had forced them to abandon the gold standard when they had it, or forced them to keep it when they abandoned it. The US government did what they thougth was best for them, and so does china.
So if china says the yuan is worth the same as 7 dollars, or 3 pesos, or 10 bananas, and if they have to means to guarantee that value, that is their right, and it does not matter whether the dollar is "your" currency or the bananas are from argentinia.
No one is forcing you to accept yuans.
I just do not understand this attitude of yours, that the president should "do something" about the internal politics of another country. Sadly, the current president shares this attitude.
Dude, it is their currency, they can tie it to whatever arbitrary value they want. What is a president to do, tie the dollar to half the value of the yuan in revenge? Or double the value? Or simply invade?
The article is a bit light on details.
How can we actually detect the magnetic field of another star?
I thought that the distance is certainly too big to observe it directly, and we barely have the resolution to tell that there is a planet there at all.
Actually a recent study claims that while the per-year health care cost of smokers is higher, the total lifetime cost is lower than for non-smokers.
Evolution is not a religion. It is not a guide for the proper way to live. It does not provide any of the answers for deciding this problem.
Just because Mother Nature does something one way, does not mean that this is somehow the best, most proper, fairest, smartest, long-term safest way, or that it has any other advantage except for the short-term survival-of-the-fittest well-not-actually-you-but-at-least-your-genes kind.
Mother Nature is a bitch.
You can argue to what degree humans should care and provide for other humans in a society, but do not use evolution as an excuse.
That is not the definition of theft. Not even close.
If I go to a flower field and take a deep breath, I get something I want and value, yet do not pay.
There are no geostationary orbits that stay behind the moon. But we could maybe put a satellite in a Lissajous orbit around the lagrange point L2 behind the moon.
To send signals back you would need a relay satelite thougth
If someone wanted to foil current as well as new security measures and as a bonus create chaos in an airport with almost no risk, he would simply have to distribute traces of powdered explosives or drugs or other chemicals they search for somewhere near the entrance.
This would be a simple as dragging a sligthly leaking luggage bag around outside the building, and with all the other travelers hauling luggage won't be noticed for sure.
Whether the airport uses spectroscopy, dogs, or other sensors, everyone who walks trough that powder will trigger the alarm, more so than a terrorist that actively tried to remove all traces from himself.
We should use this awesome technologie to help guide ill people.
Especially Paranoid Schizophrenics.
We can send them reassuring messages, like "you are not alone. we are there to get you (help)"
or warn them of imminent dangers, like which bus drivers hate them.
This reminds me of a rindler horizon
A phenomen that has some similarities with a black hole, but without gravitational effects involved.
The neccesary technology is conceivable, but this level of terraforming is at least a few decades into the future, and will probably take centuries to work.
This is far faster than atmospheric loss due to the low gravity on mars, which takes millions of years.
It is however far slower than the current pollution of our atmosphere.
Also note that however bad global warming is, earth will never become as inhospitable as mars throught it. The scale is totally different. I have no doubt that we can keep earth atmosphere in a state were most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation, far easier than we can transform mars atmosphere into one where most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation. But I think we should aim a bit higher on earth.
These atmosphere-stripping processes work on a timescale several orders of magnitude larger than any reasonable terraforming process.
If we find a practical way to generate a habitable environment on mars, one that does not take longer than a few million years, then we also can replenish the atmosphere much faster than it leaves.
include a custom string in the message id of mails that you send. Thunderbirds and most other mailers offer some way to do this.
Whitelist everything that contains this string, blacklist everything else from your address
In addition, most mails that are replies to one of your mails will contain your message id in its references header, so by whitelisting this string, you also prevent falsely classifying those as spam.
How about a new law:
Just like food sold must include a list of incgredients, fat content, etc
so should certain groups of products have to include a list of guaranted minimum quantities offered, or your money back
Any advert that references these quantities, in the form of "unlimited", "up to 100 gb" "up to 500% faster" etc.
would have to disclose the minima too.
Companies would still be free to promise the sky. But since they would need to at least define a guaranted lower bound, customers would knew a number they could rely on, and compare products based on those.
Where I am from gas tanks either have to be unlocked with the key or with a switch inside the vehikle.
Is that not the general case?
Both the switch and the key could be solved with driver-robot interaction, but with the key that sounds vastly impractical.
A simple solution for this is to shorten the time before the work falls into public domain.
Eventually your copyright will expire anyway. If you add a clause that says the source is relicensed under public domain [in 10 years | after your death | something else], then it can always outlive your personal work, before it falls into oblivion.
public domain is compatible with any license.
And if someone wants to use the source under a different license sooner, they can always contact you.
What about subpixel rendering? I have not been able to find a solution for that on win2k
I still prefer win2k or win2k3, not as much clutter to disable, less noncritical updates to test.
Win2k runs with less ram, and win2k3 has everything xp has, with more sane defaults.
the only thing xp seems to be good at are notebooks, with the energy options and improved wireless in sp2.
Also, by running for president the candidates give up most of their own privacy. Their past will be scrutinized, their associates drilled for secrets, everything they say will be protocolled, every mistake reported in the media the next day.
Anyone willing to put up with that does not value his own privacy very high, so is unlikely to value others right to privacy much either.
it also sucks if you want to have any choice in viewing or printing the document, for example a larger font size or a different paper format, since that would require repagination.
The White Chamber was the first Adventure-style Game that honestly scared me
Anyone willing to run for public office under these conditions is by definition someone who does not mind such mandatory tests for a job or insurance.
In fact, I think this is the major reason politicans do so little to protect privacy: they do not have much of their own left.
If someone minds having their every move observed, with every embarassing thing made public, they will not run for public office.
I disagree that this is "purely for tracking purposes". A side effect is certainly to make the full version more attractive.
There are a lot of people for whom such a "simple registration" is more than they can handle.
An unknown dialog box poping up is for them always a sign of something wrong, no matter the contents.
If your less computer-literate friends do not call you in those cases, you probably are far more selective with your friends than I. That does not mean they are stupid, just not versed with computers.
User-friendly would be if those products had a warning before installation "this product wil stop working once each year until you repeat an arbitrary and annoying procedure" Then i could either prepare my friends for that or stop recommending tht product altogether.