I would suspect (without bothering with any math) that the energy required to reverse the spin on the star would be much larger than to set the planet orbiting backwards.
They both stand counter to actual free markets. Deficit spending and printing money are exactly the same. Especially when the central bank is buying the damn treasuries...
Borrowing money from China or borrowing money from the Fed. Big difference there. Clearly completely different economic strategies.
Are Anglicans and Catholics are different? From the perspective of a Catholic or Anglican I guess they are, from the perspective of an athiest they are the same thing.
They just put people in jail for not disclosing a password. "There is no password, it was a joke" and "I forgot it" can't be valid defenses or they wou;d have been used.
Seriously what is government intervention to pump money into the economy when the economy looks like it is starting a downward trend, if it isn't stock standard Keynesian IS/LM curve shifting?
Sure Greenspan called himself a free-marketer, but actions speak louder.
I guessed based on the language error being a common one for non-native speakers (and children) of applying a generic rule in a case that has an exception (my five year old does it all the time, it's how he learns the exceptions).
The market would work fine if it was "completely free" - you would get booms and busts and the busts would suck for those who did stupid things in the booms.
It would also work if it was "completely" regulated - you would get booms and busts and the busts would suck for those who did't do stupid things in the booms.
What doesn't work is regulating one side and not the other. You can't regulate interest rates to low levels and regulate loans by putting the government in as a backstop AND also allow unregulated market action by the financial sector. Obviously that will implode. The only surprising thing is that the shell game went on so long.
It's pretty damn obvious that the economy collapsed due to over leverage.
Artificially low interest rates are an pretty damn obvious cause of that.
You really think the financial sector would have leveraged 40:1 and loaned money to deadbeats if interest rates were at the 20% level that the market would have set them?
500,000,000 years. You can have a large number of "dark ages" and still be at "let's just move the Earth a bit" levels of technology.
You are always going to have a head start when you emerge from a dark age due to finding old writings and old machines and so on.
Either people don't exist because we nuked ourselves to extinction or "grey gooed" the planet or the planet got smacked by a large rock or whatever disaster you prefer, or we are way past caring about what the sun does.
Seriously it's 100,000x the amount of time it took for us to get from sharpening rocks with other rocks being the peak of technology to having a habited space station in orbit be seen as boring and old.
Just because you use the word "faith" to mean two different things doesn't mean those two things are the same.
No one has "faith in airplanes" (well some idiots probably do. I don't "have faith" in the plane when I fly. I see the evidence that crashes are reasonably rare and in a commercial jet require a number of things to go wrong in succession in most cases. I also see that crashes do happen and people do die. I don't "have faith" that my specific plane will be ok and have a good pilot. I expect it to since in the vast majority of cases that is true. I'm not shocked and surprised when a plane crashes though.
Slashdot Mirror
Laptop users also get less battery life.
If you get one that doesn't involve them extending you credit (i.e. a prepaid one) you they won't need a SSN.
If you want them to extend you credit then, unsurprisingly, they'll want to do an SSN based credit check.
You also have to explain the observations.
I would suspect (without bothering with any math) that the energy required to reverse the spin on the star would be much larger than to set the planet orbiting backwards.
Hence the planet changing orbits is more likely.
They both stand counter to actual free markets. Deficit spending and printing money are exactly the same. Especially when the central bank is buying the damn treasuries...
Borrowing money from China or borrowing money from the Fed. Big difference there. Clearly completely different economic strategies.
Are Anglicans and Catholics are different? From the perspective of a Catholic or Anglican I guess they are, from the perspective of an athiest they are the same thing.
So moneterist then. Same thing, pulling the other side of the handle.
Yes, hence "neutral works to"o.
Ok, neutral works to. Well other than making life hell for those not liking being killed randomly for their stuff.
They just put people in jail for not disclosing a password. "There is no password, it was a joke" and "I forgot it" can't be valid defenses or they wou;d have been used.
I wonder is possessing a blue-ray disk counts?
because when you can't provide them the encryption keys for that random file they'll lock you in jail for 2 years.
PVPing has to be a net negative, otherwise you have an exploit with friends killing each other and looting more than they lose in total.
The more rewarding (in terms of loot) you make PVPing the more incentive you provide for that "someone is going to kill you in 5 minutes" thing.
It's the correct solution for that "problem" with no "splash damage".
Because there's only ever one thing being voted for.
So voting is compulsory then.
Yes things are much simpler then, but the same applies to ballot boxes.
No it's not.
Seriously what is government intervention to pump money into the economy when the economy looks like it is starting a downward trend, if it isn't stock standard Keynesian IS/LM curve shifting?
Sure Greenspan called himself a free-marketer, but actions speak louder.
I guessed based on the language error being a common one for non-native speakers (and children) of applying a generic rule in a case that has an exception (my five year old does it all the time, it's how he learns the exceptions).
Reinforced by: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1330393&cid=29001275
I don't actually know of course.
And also, it's not "wasn't free enough".
The market would work fine if it was "completely free" - you would get booms and busts and the busts would suck for those who did stupid things in the booms.
It would also work if it was "completely" regulated - you would get booms and busts and the busts would suck for those who did't do stupid things in the booms.
What doesn't work is regulating one side and not the other. You can't regulate interest rates to low levels and regulate loans by putting the government in as a backstop AND also allow unregulated market action by the financial sector. Obviously that will implode. The only surprising thing is that the shell game went on so long.
It's pretty damn obvious that the economy collapsed due to over leverage.
Artificially low interest rates are an pretty damn obvious cause of that.
You really think the financial sector would have leveraged 40:1 and loaned money to deadbeats if interest rates were at the 20% level that the market would have set them?
Which "laissez faire fuckwads" want the government to set interest rates (yes, yes, the Fed isn't technically part of the government, blah-de-blah)?
Doesn't seem very "let do"...
Greenspan is a Keynesian you moron.
What do you think the Greenspan Put was, if not the Keynesian "government takes up the slack" approach?
Please resubmit your comment in Swedish so we can make fun of your non-native language errors too.
Should be great since your English was worse than the post you were criticizing.
Because bringing in additional glow sticks is much harder than sneaking extra ballots into a ballot box.
500,000,000 years. You can have a large number of "dark ages" and still be at "let's just move the Earth a bit" levels of technology.
You are always going to have a head start when you emerge from a dark age due to finding old writings and old machines and so on.
Either people don't exist because we nuked ourselves to extinction or "grey gooed" the planet or the planet got smacked by a large rock or whatever disaster you prefer, or we are way past caring about what the sun does.
Seriously it's 100,000x the amount of time it took for us to get from sharpening rocks with other rocks being the peak of technology to having a habited space station in orbit be seen as boring and old.
None of us will be around anyway of course :)
Just because you use the word "faith" to mean two different things doesn't mean those two things are the same.
No one has "faith in airplanes" (well some idiots probably do. I don't "have faith" in the plane when I fly. I see the evidence that crashes are reasonably rare and in a commercial jet require a number of things to go wrong in succession in most cases. I also see that crashes do happen and people do die. I don't "have faith" that my specific plane will be ok and have a good pilot. I expect it to since in the vast majority of cases that is true. I'm not shocked and surprised when a plane crashes though.
One of the most ridiculous jumps of illogic I've seen recently on slashdot. Not an easy bar to make...