"Bob drives 5 miles over the speed limit on average". Does that make sense to you? Sure it's not the most elegant wording, but that seems to express that if you subtracted the speed limit from Bob's speed then the average value would be be 5.
"Bob and Sue drive 5 miles over the speed limit on average". Haven't we just applied the statement to both of those people?
"Everyone drives 5 miles the speed limit on average". So now the claim applies to the entire population.
You can argue the claim - I'm pretty sure it's false, I'm pretty sure my average speed minus the speed limit is less than 5 (for averaging over time and for averaging over distance) and I'm in the set "everyone". The person making the claim knows it is false too, since they added the weasel words "pretty much" which means "not" if applied to "everyone". But the statement itself makes sense.
OK. If she said that people shouldn't accept such money and then did so herself that would be hypocritical. Saying that government welfare shouldn't exist and then accepting government welfare wouldn't be - since it does exist and not accepting it doesn't change that fact.
I don't know much about her - trivia about mediocre authors isn't high on my list of things to learn - so I'll accept the claim that she said people shouldn't do something that she herself did as true.
I don't think the name is a valid argument though. The government doesn't much care what you nom de plume is when it comes to working out taxes and benefits.
How is it hypocritical for someone who proclaims that people should act in their own rational self interest to do something that is in their own self interest?
What does the units you use in memory allocation have to do with how you define kilobyte? The computer doesn't care if you call 1024 bytes a kilobyte or a foomboozlebyte so what possible difference can it make? Nor does the computer care if what you call a kilobyte is 1000 bytes or 1024 bytes or 27 bytes.
Do you do malloc(1000) to get 1024 bytes allocated on your weird computer or something??? f not then how does 1 kilobyte == 1000 bytes stop you from allocating memory by powers of 2, surely your logic has to be doing that calculation already and really doesn't care what you call 2^10 bytes.
Decimate is an English word, not a Latin word. It means "to reduce drastically especially in number", that it was derived from a Roman practice and a Latin word doesn't change the commonly used definition that is hundreds of years old.
Do you also think that a symposium can only mean a drinking party?
They aren't having any impact at all. Polls are orders of magnitude easier to easier to subvert anyway.
Yes a betting market should give an indication of what "the market" thinks the result will be. And that means diddly-squat when deciding whom to vote for.
And if there are people stupid enough to change their voting behavior based upon who other people think will win then the problem solves itself. There are two big parties. If one spends $X to move the odds, then it costs the other side exactly $X to move them back (well ok if no one else is betting). I'm fine with politicians throwing their money at shady online betting entities instead of at Murdoch.
1. Betting market odds mean exactly diddly-squat for the actual election. 2. Your writing is terrible, so even if they betting odds did matter your wall of text would still not be given a shit about. 3. Your ideas are worse than your writing, but that's a repitition of 1.
That you have to pay people to read your garbage and engage with you should be all the hint you need to have worked that out already.
Where are these mythical greedy rural folks expecting handouts you talk about? Cause I've never met a one living in such places my whole life.
Really?
You've never met a person in the country whose mail cost more to deliver that the mail of someone living in a city apartment and yet sending mail to them costs the same? You've never a met person in the country who has used something funded via the RBS or the RUS? Never met someone who ever used the RHS? You've never met a rural person on food stamps?
I have however met many a person in the city living on welfare with an escalade in the driveway and using a food stamp funded cell phone.
I suspect you're lying or at least being deceptive. How large a number is "many"? You can't fund a cell phone with food stamps so you are just making that up (or it was criminal fraud - that happens in the country too you know and isn't relevant to subsidizing), or you misunderstand the lifeline program and have mixed it up with food stamps I guess (though if you can't tell the difference between food and telephones?).
Given that a higher percentage of rural people are on food stamps than city people (see data at https://www.census.gov/sipp/), it's amazing you've managed to invert that in your meeting of people. Do you frequent the poor city neighborhoods and the rich rural ones?
You can make this happen right now! I realize this will amaze you, but it's actually simple to implement. You can do it this week, it doesn't even cost anything.
Are you ready for this amazing technique? It's used by the wealthy and powerful, but I'm exposing their hidden tricks. Again, at no charge to you!
That would probably be useful for the technology field, where patents are a dime a dozen and patent trolls run rampant.
However, pharma companies don't really care about the amount of damages, so paying $1/year will do them. They care about the monopoly aspect. They want to prevent others from producing the drugs they have patents on, not get payouts from those that do. The amount of the damage award limits doesn't change "you can't make/sell that" outcome. Since everything goes through the FDA for approval things will almost always get stopped before damages occur anyway.
"replace teachers with fast food service associates" and "[Bill Gat s] is the greatest, the messiah" should make it pretty simple in this particular case.
And they have no cover from being sued for harm to right? They can't argue that the FDA approved it so it's not there fault. So there's no need to prove the hid the risks just that the product did harm. And of course if the product doesn't actually do the things they claimed it does they're open for suing as well - again with no "the FDA approved it" excuse. I doubt they'd take that option (well the make a quick buck and run away subset would).
It's a bizarre exchange you propose in the first place though. The patent system wasn't created in exchange for FDA regulation so why link them to remove it?
No patents would fundamentally change the way the pharma industry works. And the way drug approvals happen would likely need reworking to match. I'm not claiming it would be a better or worse way of doing things. I'm just disputing the "Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all" sweeping claim, which doesn't seem to match the large pharma corporations and their lobbying for patents.
Sure that's another option. A much harder option since working out the details of a new system isn't trivial. An option that would take much longer.
Why not remove it and then work on adding back a fixed version. That way you get the quick fix now, and you can still have the better fix later. You also get to observe the effects of not having the system at all which will be of great benefit when designing a new system.
Yes. Large pharma companies famously hate the patent system. They would much rather generic versions of their new drugs be available as soon as they get FDA approval. All that lobbying Pfizer has done to get patent laws strengthened and to try to convince the US government to pressure other countries not to allow generic nelfinavir was in some parallel universe.
Though dental insurance still isn't worthwhile, might be a good indicator of a person worth trying to sell useless shit to though (unless the insurance came with the job and they had no option).
Bank depositers are bond holders (they've loaned money to the bank after all). I said they lose all their money, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that that makes them 100% government guaranteed.
Yes. The company has failed. That is what happens. If there's money left then bond holders (and other creditors) get paid, if there's still some after that share holders get paid.
In that case there is no money left so they all get nothing. If there was money left, they wouldn't need a bail out in the first place, and hence this won't happen.
But yes the idea is to make "too big to fail" companies not worth investing in, and hence make "too big to fail" companies not exist. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? And I didn't restrict it to public companies, so no "non-public companies" don't get away with it either.
Don't bail them out. Don't let them fail and have the knock on effects take down half the economy with them.
Instead if they get to the point that they need a bail out they are nationalized. The share holders get *nothing*. The bond holders get *nothing*. The board and C?Os get a grand jury/under oath senate hearing/SEC/whatever investigation and the book thrown as them. The government does the splitting up and selling off over time (so no fire sale) to divest.
Sure that sucks for people who have pensions/401ks/IRAs/etc invested in those entities (directly or indirectly). But if it's the predetermined outcome upon "failure" then everyone involved knows this going in and should be factoring that risk into the price they're willing to pay and allocation size they are willing to make.
And yes the government is still effectively bailing out the next level down (that's how the knock on effects are being avoided).
Slashdot Mirror
"Bob drives 5 miles over the speed limit on average". Does that make sense to you? Sure it's not the most elegant wording, but that seems to express that if you subtracted the speed limit from Bob's speed then the average value would be be 5.
"Bob and Sue drive 5 miles over the speed limit on average". Haven't we just applied the statement to both of those people?
"Everyone drives 5 miles the speed limit on average". So now the claim applies to the entire population.
You can argue the claim - I'm pretty sure it's false, I'm pretty sure my average speed minus the speed limit is less than 5 (for averaging over time and for averaging over distance) and I'm in the set "everyone". The person making the claim knows it is false too, since they added the weasel words "pretty much" which means "not" if applied to "everyone". But the statement itself makes sense.
OK. If she said that people shouldn't accept such money and then did so herself that would be hypocritical. Saying that government welfare shouldn't exist and then accepting government welfare wouldn't be - since it does exist and not accepting it doesn't change that fact.
I don't know much about her - trivia about mediocre authors isn't high on my list of things to learn - so I'll accept the claim that she said people shouldn't do something that she herself did as true.
I don't think the name is a valid argument though. The government doesn't much care what you nom de plume is when it comes to working out taxes and benefits.
How is it hypocritical for someone who proclaims that people should act in their own rational self interest to do something that is in their own self interest?
Why not? The RAM doesn't care what name you give it.
What does the units you use in memory allocation have to do with how you define kilobyte? The computer doesn't care if you call 1024 bytes a kilobyte or a foomboozlebyte so what possible difference can it make? Nor does the computer care if what you call a kilobyte is 1000 bytes or 1024 bytes or 27 bytes.
Do you do malloc(1000) to get 1024 bytes allocated on your weird computer or something??? f not then how does 1 kilobyte == 1000 bytes stop you from allocating memory by powers of 2, surely your logic has to be doing that calculation already and really doesn't care what you call 2^10 bytes.
Decimate is an English word, not a Latin word. It means "to reduce drastically especially in number", that it was derived from a Roman practice and a Latin word doesn't change the commonly used definition that is hundreds of years old.
Do you also think that a symposium can only mean a drinking party?
They aren't having any impact at all. Polls are orders of magnitude easier to easier to subvert anyway.
Yes a betting market should give an indication of what "the market" thinks the result will be. And that means diddly-squat when deciding whom to vote for.
And if there are people stupid enough to change their voting behavior based upon who other people think will win then the problem solves itself. There are two big parties. If one spends $X to move the odds, then it costs the other side exactly $X to move them back (well ok if no one else is betting). I'm fine with politicians throwing their money at shady online betting entities instead of at Murdoch.
I'm pretty sure there's more than one election.
1. Betting market odds mean exactly diddly-squat for the actual election.
2. Your writing is terrible, so even if they betting odds did matter your wall of text would still not be given a shit about.
3. Your ideas are worse than your writing, but that's a repitition of 1.
That you have to pay people to read your garbage and engage with you should be all the hint you need to have worked that out already.
10MB is 100mbit (well a little less but if you are just using 1, 10, 100 then 100 is *much* closer than 10).
Really?
You've never met a person in the country whose mail cost more to deliver that the mail of someone living in a city apartment and yet sending mail to them costs the same? You've never a met person in the country who has used something funded via the RBS or the RUS? Never met someone who ever used the RHS? You've never met a rural person on food stamps?
I suspect you're lying or at least being deceptive. How large a number is "many"? You can't fund a cell phone with food stamps so you are just making that up (or it was criminal fraud - that happens in the country too you know and isn't relevant to subsidizing), or you misunderstand the lifeline program and have mixed it up with food stamps I guess (though if you can't tell the difference between food and telephones?).
Given that a higher percentage of rural people are on food stamps than city people (see data at https://www.census.gov/sipp/), it's amazing you've managed to invert that in your meeting of people. Do you frequent the poor city neighborhoods and the rich rural ones?
If said bill has passed and you are that city, then yes.
You can make this happen right now! I realize this will amaze you, but it's actually simple to implement. You can do it this week, it doesn't even cost anything.
Are you ready for this amazing technique? It's used by the wealthy and powerful, but I'm exposing their hidden tricks. Again, at no charge to you!
Don't check your mailbox on Saturday or Sunday.
Mind blowing isn't it!
That would probably be useful for the technology field, where patents are a dime a dozen and patent trolls run rampant.
However, pharma companies don't really care about the amount of damages, so paying $1/year will do them. They care about the monopoly aspect. They want to prevent others from producing the drugs they have patents on, not get payouts from those that do. The amount of the damage award limits doesn't change "you can't make/sell that" outcome. Since everything goes through the FDA for approval things will almost always get stopped before damages occur anyway.
"replace teachers with fast food service associates" and "[Bill Gat s] is the greatest, the messiah" should make it pretty simple in this particular case.
And they have no cover from being sued for harm to right? They can't argue that the FDA approved it so it's not there fault. So there's no need to prove the hid the risks just that the product did harm. And of course if the product doesn't actually do the things they claimed it does they're open for suing as well - again with no "the FDA approved it" excuse. I doubt they'd take that option (well the make a quick buck and run away subset would).
It's a bizarre exchange you propose in the first place though. The patent system wasn't created in exchange for FDA regulation so why link them to remove it?
No patents would fundamentally change the way the pharma industry works. And the way drug approvals happen would likely need reworking to match. I'm not claiming it would be a better or worse way of doing things. I'm just disputing the "Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all" sweeping claim, which doesn't seem to match the large pharma corporations and their lobbying for patents.
Sure that's another option. A much harder option since working out the details of a new system isn't trivial. An option that would take much longer.
Why not remove it and then work on adding back a fixed version. That way you get the quick fix now, and you can still have the better fix later. You also get to observe the effects of not having the system at all which will be of great benefit when designing a new system.
Yes. Large pharma companies famously hate the patent system. They would much rather generic versions of their new drugs be available as soon as they get FDA approval. All that lobbying Pfizer has done to get patent laws strengthened and to try to convince the US government to pressure other countries not to allow generic nelfinavir was in some parallel universe.
My impression is likely old or wrong then. Or I only saw some particularly bad deals.
It's stupidly expensive in the US.
Though dental insurance still isn't worthwhile, might be a good indicator of a person worth trying to sell useless shit to though (unless the insurance came with the job and they had no option).
Nothing. They both lose their money. That's the idea.
Of course the FDIC comes into play, but that's true in the "let them all fail" solution too.
Bank depositers are bond holders (they've loaned money to the bank after all). I said they lose all their money, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that that makes them 100% government guaranteed.
Yes. The company has failed. That is what happens. If there's money left then bond holders (and other creditors) get paid, if there's still some after that share holders get paid.
In that case there is no money left so they all get nothing. If there was money left, they wouldn't need a bail out in the first place, and hence this won't happen.
But yes the idea is to make "too big to fail" companies not worth investing in, and hence make "too big to fail" companies not exist. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? And I didn't restrict it to public companies, so no "non-public companies" don't get away with it either.
Which is irrelevant since this is about neither geography or genealogy.
Don't bail them out. Don't let them fail and have the knock on effects take down half the economy with them.
Instead if they get to the point that they need a bail out they are nationalized. The share holders get *nothing*. The bond holders get *nothing*. The board and C?Os get a grand jury/under oath senate hearing/SEC/whatever investigation and the book thrown as them. The government does the splitting up and selling off over time (so no fire sale) to divest.
Sure that sucks for people who have pensions/401ks/IRAs/etc invested in those entities (directly or indirectly). But if it's the predetermined outcome upon "failure" then everyone involved knows this going in and should be factoring that risk into the price they're willing to pay and allocation size they are willing to make.
And yes the government is still effectively bailing out the next level down (that's how the knock on effects are being avoided).