The lottery part is irrelevant, how interest is allocated to holders makes exactly zero difference to what a bond is.
Or perhaps you don't understand what "fund SETI" means?. Where is this money to invest coming from (the money from the bonds is going to fund SETI after all so it can't be it)? And why don't they just use that to fund SETI instead of adding the pointless bonds middle man?
A bond is simply a loan. The bond issuer gets a bunch of money up front and then has to pay it back in the future. That is fine for things like a bank that will take the money raised and loan it to others thus generating the required additional funds. That's fine for things like the government wanting to fund a project (or a war, or day to day operations) they will collect taxes in the future to pay back the funds and interest. That's fine for things like a company wanting to fund an expansion of some sort, they'll have the future revenues from the expansion to pay back the debt. Heck if you want to buy a house by issuing bonds instead of going with a traditional mortgage have at it - the theory being your future income will allow you to pay the interest and principal and if not then the house can be sold to hopefully get back most of it.
But what revenue stream does SETI have in order to pay back these bonds? And do they really need the expense of the bond management and interest payments to access that future revenue early (via borrowing with bonds)?
Sure, but you don't always have an infinite amount of resources available. Thus you want to maximize what you can defend against. All I'm saying is that I suspect that your weight/dollar/space budget is going to be better spent on active defenses (or stealth if feasible) than on heavier armor.
Though you certainly want some - if only for instances like this and speedboat bombs in port...
Or maybe they've spent more time and money that you working out what will work best.
I strongly suspect (though I'm not interested enough to actually research it) that modern (and not so modern, battleships were going out of style long ago) anti-ship weaponry is deadly enough that the amount of armor required to defend against it would not be practical. Thus you instead make ships that are harder to it, and if one gets through the active defenses you are done anyway - so there's not much point in heavy armor.
You take the extra anti-missile defense system (of whatever flavor) that might stop you from getting hit over the extra armor that will be smashed through as it it wasn't there if you take the hit anyway.
The obvious use is that it is much easier to convict people of crimes they have committed as opposed to crimes the are intent on committing. Catching and convicting people for possessing drugs is much easier than for using drugs, hence we get laws against possessing drugs even though stopping drug use is the justification given.
Because they self proclaim as "the land of the free" obviously, whereas, Saudi Arabia (for example) does not and hence there is no hypocrisy when they aren't actually free.
But a store doesn't have to take them for anything but a debt, just like they don't have to take bitcoins. And most transactions don't involve a debt.
For example, the local government run buses over here refuse to take "large notes" - if you try to pay the $1.50 fare with a $20 note you won't be catching that bus. So there's the government not accepting "legal tender" - as you are allowed to do for any non-debt transaction.
And how does that work you have backing the currency prevent the government from say increasing the money supply by a factor of 10,000 without a corresponding increase in "work"?
Hint: it doesn't and hence that work is not backing up the currency.
A currency backed by gold (or some other commodity) has the same "backed by the work" feature. Almost nobody cares about the actual gold, they care about a medium of exchange (your "abstract form of bartering"). But that gold backing prevents the government from expanding the money supply without a corresponding expansion of their gold stores.
Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends on whether you trust the government to manage the money supply in a way that benefits the economy and whether you think the amount of gold (or whatever) will be a good match to the size of the economy, but the pros and cons are irrelevant to what "backed by" means when talking about a currency.
Just by looking at those two cars, which one would you expect to be involved in far more high speed collisions, and hence large impacts involving the battery, due to it being driven by idiot hoons?
It's hard to use something that has been on the front page of newspapers as blackmail material. "Oh no, if I don't do what you say you'll publish this information that was on the front page of the paper? Oh anything but that! What if someone finds out?"
Sure and if he wants to supply the list of urls that should be taken out of search results that would be relevant. But that isn't what is being asked and hence isn't relevant. That is what they have been doing, but apparently Mosley is tired of playing whack-a-mole, for example: http://www.chillingeffects.org/courtorder/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1259783
I guess it's 365,000 euros a year for France - just put up the picture on a a different url each day and have it show up in a google search and send google the bill for the fine.
Google could add a filter for that name and refuse to give search results for it, but that would be a new feature, and would they still get fined if the pictures showed up on a search for some other terms? The TFA says so, but I doubt pcmag.com has a lot of expertise in reading French court decisions.
Still someone at Google must be itching to add such a filter and when that name is searched for return a static result page with something like:
"Due to a French legal decision we aren't allowed to show you images for those particular search terms. Max Mosley doesn't want pictures of him engaging in a a nazi themed orgy with five prostitutes to be shown. Here are some other photos of Nazi themed orgy pictures not involving Mr Mosley:"
It was only 30 years ago that it was perfectly feasible to work your way through university on summer jobs.
Now part of that is that the apparently the US was too socialist when Reagan started and so public funding of universities has been cut to the bone. But part of it is that tuition fees have skyrocket because basic economics tells you that if you shift the demand curve up (say by making is easier for people to borrow to pay for that particular thing) then the price will rise.
In the early 80s doing medicine at a state university would cost a state resident about $1200/year in tuition compared with $40,000/year now. A summer job at $4/hour would cover tuition way back then.
Why would that be a problem? Without student loans the price of education will have to fall if the universities want to not be empty. So that seems a self correcting problem.
Which are the same thing, given it takes a few seconds to check. Both mean the rest of the claims are suspect and not worth the effort checking - the whole argument can just be ignored (of course given the moderating a bunch of people didn't). Whether the rest of the argument is suspect because the poster lies or because the poster had a bad memory and doesn't double check (a bad combination) doesn't make a practical difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because only 20 of those cars have ever been produced.
Well we know one person who is being intellectually dishonest, as least.
The lottery part is irrelevant, how interest is allocated to holders makes exactly zero difference to what a bond is.
Or perhaps you don't understand what "fund SETI" means?. Where is this money to invest coming from (the money from the bonds is going to fund SETI after all so it can't be it)? And why don't they just use that to fund SETI instead of adding the pointless bonds middle man?
A bond is simply a loan. The bond issuer gets a bunch of money up front and then has to pay it back in the future. That is fine for things like a bank that will take the money raised and loan it to others thus generating the required additional funds. That's fine for things like the government wanting to fund a project (or a war, or day to day operations) they will collect taxes in the future to pay back the funds and interest. That's fine for things like a company wanting to fund an expansion of some sort, they'll have the future revenues from the expansion to pay back the debt. Heck if you want to buy a house by issuing bonds instead of going with a traditional mortgage have at it - the theory being your future income will allow you to pay the interest and principal and if not then the house can be sold to hopefully get back most of it.
But what revenue stream does SETI have in order to pay back these bonds? And do they really need the expense of the bond management and interest payments to access that future revenue early (via borrowing with bonds)?
Did they forget the part where they have to pay out those interest payments, and the principal, and the stupid lottery at the end too?
What revenue are they planning to pay those payments with? More bonds? Do they think they are the US government or Madoff?
Sure, but you don't always have an infinite amount of resources available. Thus you want to maximize what you can defend against. All I'm saying is that I suspect that your weight/dollar/space budget is going to be better spent on active defenses (or stealth if feasible) than on heavier armor.
Though you certainly want some - if only for instances like this and speedboat bombs in port...
Or maybe they've spent more time and money that you working out what will work best.
I strongly suspect (though I'm not interested enough to actually research it) that modern (and not so modern, battleships were going out of style long ago) anti-ship weaponry is deadly enough that the amount of armor required to defend against it would not be practical. Thus you instead make ships that are harder to it, and if one gets through the active defenses you are done anyway - so there's not much point in heavy armor.
You take the extra anti-missile defense system (of whatever flavor) that might stop you from getting hit over the extra armor that will be smashed through as it it wasn't there if you take the hit anyway.
Not at all.
Note, that it didn't sink or get disabled.
You very may well be the only person to misinterpret the standard "I skipped a bit" indicator in quoted text.
The obvious use is that it is much easier to convict people of crimes they have committed as opposed to crimes the are intent on committing. Catching and convicting people for possessing drugs is much easier than for using drugs, hence we get laws against possessing drugs even though stopping drug use is the justification given.
No. It's more like 60x.
Because they self proclaim as "the land of the free" obviously, whereas, Saudi Arabia (for example) does not and hence there is no hypocrisy when they aren't actually free.
But a store doesn't have to take them for anything but a debt, just like they don't have to take bitcoins. And most transactions don't involve a debt.
For example, the local government run buses over here refuse to take "large notes" - if you try to pay the $1.50 fare with a $20 note you won't be catching that bus. So there's the government not accepting "legal tender" - as you are allowed to do for any non-debt transaction.
And how does that work you have backing the currency prevent the government from say increasing the money supply by a factor of 10,000 without a corresponding increase in "work"?
Hint: it doesn't and hence that work is not backing up the currency.
A currency backed by gold (or some other commodity) has the same "backed by the work" feature. Almost nobody cares about the actual gold, they care about a medium of exchange (your "abstract form of bartering"). But that gold backing prevents the government from expanding the money supply without a corresponding expansion of their gold stores.
Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends on whether you trust the government to manage the money supply in a way that benefits the economy and whether you think the amount of gold (or whatever) will be a good match to the size of the economy, but the pros and cons are irrelevant to what "backed by" means when talking about a currency.
So the same as euros and US dollars then?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nissan+leaf
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=tesla+model+s
Just by looking at those two cars, which one would you expect to be involved in far more high speed collisions, and hence large impacts involving the battery, due to it being driven by idiot hoons?
It's hard to use something that has been on the front page of newspapers as blackmail material. "Oh no, if I don't do what you say you'll publish this information that was on the front page of the paper? Oh anything but that! What if someone finds out?"
2 girls 1 cup is clearly the genre defining item in the set: NumberGenderNumberContainer.
Sure and if he wants to supply the list of urls that should be taken out of search results that would be relevant. But that isn't what is being asked and hence isn't relevant. That is what they have been doing, but apparently Mosley is tired of playing whack-a-mole, for example: http://www.chillingeffects.org/courtorder/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1259783
I guess it's 365,000 euros a year for France - just put up the picture on a a different url each day and have it show up in a google search and send google the bill for the fine.
Google could add a filter for that name and refuse to give search results for it, but that would be a new feature, and would they still get fined if the pictures showed up on a search for some other terms? The TFA says so, but I doubt pcmag.com has a lot of expertise in reading French court decisions.
Still someone at Google must be itching to add such a filter and when that name is searched for return a static result page with something like:
"Due to a French legal decision we aren't allowed to show you images for those particular search terms. Max Mosley doesn't want pictures of him engaging in a a nazi themed orgy with five prostitutes to be shown. Here are some other photos of Nazi themed orgy pictures not involving Mr Mosley:"
It was only 30 years ago that it was perfectly feasible to work your way through university on summer jobs.
Now part of that is that the apparently the US was too socialist when Reagan started and so public funding of universities has been cut to the bone. But part of it is that tuition fees have skyrocket because basic economics tells you that if you shift the demand curve up (say by making is easier for people to borrow to pay for that particular thing) then the price will rise.
In the early 80s doing medicine at a state university would cost a state resident about $1200/year in tuition compared with $40,000/year now. A summer job at $4/hour would cover tuition way back then.
Why would that be a problem? Without student loans the price of education will have to fall if the universities want to not be empty. So that seems a self correcting problem.
Sure, if that's what the opposite of having a single point of failure was, but since it isn't that's irrelevant.
No they're following the rules and the complainer is a moron who can't read.
Which are the same thing, given it takes a few seconds to check. Both mean the rest of the claims are suspect and not worth the effort checking - the whole argument can just be ignored (of course given the moderating a bunch of people didn't). Whether the rest of the argument is suspect because the poster lies or because the poster had a bad memory and doesn't double check (a bad combination) doesn't make a practical difference.
Sign me up.
Google, eBay, and Amazon all existed 15 years ago. Maybe not starting with an obvious lie would make for a better argument?
shift-i