Maybe if you provided even the slightest bit of evidence for the huge premise that odds offered by betting markets will change voting behavior in a predictable manner it might matter.
A higher share price (for the same number of shares, obviously) makes it easier for the company to get more money though. They can issue new stock or more likely be able to borrow more money. Though the statement you quote does seem to imply a direct transfer of cash which certainly isn't the case.
It doesn't achieve what I though was the aim - to increase the purchasing power of people's existing money. Of course I may have misunderstood it wasn't my aim or proposal and you stating it was doesn't change that.
"work on making it a more reasonable value" isn't replacing the currency - it's changing the existing one. That involves price deflation, which doesn't have to be a problem but no government is going to try that when they themselves have huge amounts of debt.
That doesn make a dollar a more reasonable value. That creates an entirely different dollar, which is completely unrelated with changing the current purchasing power of a currency.
So a combination of sickly enough to find carrying a few coins heavy and stupid enough to not think of exchanging 2 or 5 coins for a far more easily damaged but lighter form of currency?
Clearly it does. It provides a selection factor which when combined with the genetic mutations mentioned in the summary (what, read an article???) gives you the ingredients for evolution.
Sure if you get cash from them, but the gift cards tend to give you the full amount (I assume that amazon pays the company running the machine - since now you have to spend that money with them). Since I'm going to buy something from amazon anyway...
You don't need to give change for such ludicrously small amounts of value. We used to price to the half cent, and the world didn't end when that was dropped.
Whether earning more than 90% of Americans still classifies one as poor, is a tangent in which the details of programmers is irrelevant. Just like it has nothing to do with IBM and India too.
You must be pretty poor if you think $80K/year is good money in most/any American city.
Note, no mention of programmers or desk jobs. And you changed "pretty good money" to "a lot of money" - the threshold for "pretty good" is lower than that of "a lot" so you changed my claim before going with the insults.
I had a paragraph of "if you are trying to list previous greatest artists then you have some gaps, fill in all the other 30 years windows and let's see if they are all that great". But I trimmed it because I liked the interpretation I kept better (and figured I'd get a reply to add that one too anyway).
Which again is almost proving her point. I'm sure there are other 30 year windows in which the art was crap too (the rather huge gaps in that list might contain one even). That George Lucas clearly doesn't belong in such a list is her entire point after all - that one critically panned movie is a better work of art than anything produced in the fine arts in that time frame. Obviously you can disagree with her, but listing prior great artist doesn't do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if you provided even the slightest bit of evidence for the huge premise that odds offered by betting markets will change voting behavior in a predictable manner it might matter.
A higher share price (for the same number of shares, obviously) makes it easier for the company to get more money though. They can issue new stock or more likely be able to borrow more money. Though the statement you quote does seem to imply a direct transfer of cash which certainly isn't the case.
Sure, if you read more than just the title - which is unlikely given what the title is.
That you have/know crappy kids?
Because they can't draw or paint on a non-touch screen?
Maybe understanding that I didn't ask for it would help. I stated my interpretation of someone elses statement, I see no purpose in doing so again.
Lowering the number on the price tag is merely a side effect of what is desired, just doing that is pointless.
There's clearly a competition happening for most idiotic posting. From plastic on mars, to a loop that isn't a loop, to this.
It doesn't achieve what I though was the aim - to increase the purchasing power of people's existing money. Of course I may have misunderstood it wasn't my aim or proposal and you stating it was doesn't change that.
"work on making it a more reasonable value" isn't replacing the currency - it's changing the existing one. That involves price deflation, which doesn't have to be a problem but no government is going to try that when they themselves have huge amounts of debt.
That doesn make a dollar a more reasonable value. That creates an entirely different dollar, which is completely unrelated with changing the current purchasing power of a currency.
So a combination of sickly enough to find carrying a few coins heavy and stupid enough to not think of exchanging 2 or 5 coins for a far more easily damaged but lighter form of currency?
Clearly it does. It provides a selection factor which when combined with the genetic mutations mentioned in the summary (what, read an article???) gives you the ingredients for evolution.
There's too much debt in the systems to do that.
All the ones around here are https://coinstar.com/ ones that have a bunch of gift card options all at no charge (getting cash skims off 10% or so).
Are the too sickly to handle the weight of a coin? Or just too stupid to understand what a coin is?
Oh no! Someone used a common colloquial, better shut that down!
Do you complain when people claim to have "quarters" when the US has no such thing, "quarter dollars" are what those coins are called after all.
Sure if you get cash from them, but the gift cards tend to give you the full amount (I assume that amazon pays the company running the machine - since now you have to spend that money with them). Since I'm going to buy something from amazon anyway...
You don't need to give change for such ludicrously small amounts of value. We used to price to the half cent, and the world didn't end when that was dropped.
Depends on the temperature. at 3C yes, at 5C no.
Whether earning more than 90% of Americans still classifies one as poor, is a tangent in which the details of programmers is irrelevant. Just like it has nothing to do with IBM and India too.
No the post I replied to in its entirety was:
Note, no mention of programmers or desk jobs. And you changed "pretty good money" to "a lot of money" - the threshold for "pretty good" is lower than that of "a lot" so you changed my claim before going with the insults.
There was no mention of "for a programmer". And that's a great argument you end with, nice change or words to make it irrelevant as well.
90% of Americans have a personal income of less than $80K/year. So no, you have to be pretty rich to think $80K/year isn't good money.
I had a paragraph of "if you are trying to list previous greatest artists then you have some gaps, fill in all the other 30 years windows and let's see if they are all that great". But I trimmed it because I liked the interpretation I kept better (and figured I'd get a reply to add that one too anyway).
Which again is almost proving her point. I'm sure there are other 30 year windows in which the art was crap too (the rather huge gaps in that list might contain one even). That George Lucas clearly doesn't belong in such a list is her entire point after all - that one critically panned movie is a better work of art than anything produced in the fine arts in that time frame. Obviously you can disagree with her, but listing prior great artist doesn't do so.