First, do you understand what context is? I ask because your reply ignored the context of the last post.
You see, when the discussion is clearly about unemployment rates and how they effect hiring, intelligent people realize that when one says "there's no one to hire when the unemployment rate is 0%" that the discussion is about the unemployed.
Or did you think I was arguing a 0% employment makes the population vanish into thin air, thereby leaving literally no one to hire?
Second, in the context of your statement, you couldn't hire away enough people to even touch the inflation rate, much less actually cause a real change.
There's no reason settling, or even losing a lawsuit will cause the stock price to drop.
Specifically, if the suit is seen as being a drain on company resources, then resolving it could easily cause prices to rise. This is especially true if the suit's outcome is more favorable for the company than expected, such as a settlement that is less than the expected judgement if the case went to trial.
You brouhjt up guilt by association, and I demonstrated why that assertion was vapid.
I didn't address the ridiculos bklackmail point because the idea that the police would engage in blackmail, which is so easily proven, seemed absurd to me.
So what you're saying is that the police would use your associations to blackmail you, which would require the police to leave a trail of evidence documenting their actitvities that could easily be used against them, and you somehow fail to see why that's ridiculous?
It was clear that some people are slaves to their paranoia, and that they'll let their own fear cause them to engage is ridiculous fear mongering.
"Oh my god! My buddy is a known criminal, and they...they... I can't believe this, those fucking fascist police actually had the gall to QUESTION PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM! Can you believe that! Where is the ACLU when you need them!"
Uh, yeah, the, um, unmitigated horror?
I hope THAT clarifies a few things for you...
So no, you do not know WTF is being discussed
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 1
When you said "Actually it does" then proceeded to post a reply that has nothing to do with the difference between mandated safety requirements, you demonstrated that you clearly do not know WTF is being discussed.
And no, your post has nothing to do with the difference between safety requirements of the US and EU, which is WTF is being discussed.
Nothing you posted there has anything to do with safety requirements.
Do you even have an idea WTF is being discussed? You statement about the Nissan Micra makes it pretty clear you don't, as a cars performance on safety tests has NOTHING to do with the stringency of the requirements that governing bodies put in place.
You're trying to say one steak tastes better than another because it meets FDA standards, even though they both meet the standard and it doesn't measure flavor anyway.
None of the advantages you listed deal with safety
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 1
So why were you bringing up non-safety related advantages as though they demonstrated anything?
It was never a problem...
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Foy my brother. He was a custom fabricator, and he said the only problem was with bikes that actually had the frame fabbed. Most custom shops (OCC for example) use pre-fabbed frames, and those are no problem to insure.
If you want people (Apart from the Slashdot circle jerk group think I mean) to take you seriously, stop intentionally peppering your posts with hyperbole and inaccuracies.
I have an instinctive response to people who think screaming their political diatribes at me is an effective way to interact, that being to ignore you.
For example, "Forget dreaming at all, for we can no longer afford it. Our future has been pissed away in 8 years".
I mean, could you be any more chicken little if you tried? The sky isn't falling, and screaming it over and over like you're doing doesn't make it so.
First you assertion that China would be able to eat the loss is, as you so snidely and incorrectly asserted about typour point, "demonstrably wrong". Find an economist who says otherwise, specifically in regard to charging off our debt, please.
You'll fail. Your ignorant assumptions, apart from being factually wrong, display a gross ignorance of economic theory.
You see,?person who is vastly ignorant of economics, as they sell the debt of, economic ignoramus, the debt loses its value, while the hard goods that debt purchsed or financed only deprecite, monetary know-nothing.
Do you understand now why your last post made you look "demonstrably stupid" or do I have continue to point out your gross incompetence?
When told you were wrong and that I disagree, your best attempt at an argument is to call me a liar?
Yes, when I said you weren't capable of rational debate, your "nuh uh you did not" was definitive proof I was right.
And just so we're clear, you don't know what a red herring is. If you did, you'd realize that your total failure to address the obvious dissimilarities between a dictatorship, and a democratically elected government is as far from a red herring as one could get.
By your logic, Nazi Germany or Pol Pot is no different than a freely elcted government.
I have to wonder why you'd try to pass off such a stupid assertion.
I also have to wonder why you think you can dismiss a point you can't refute by pretending it's a red herring.
Again, so we're clear, it matters if a country is a dictatorship or not. Whether Bush mentioned it is irrelevant, as anyone who isn't retarded understands there's a difference.
So, your point is that they would destroy their own economy in an attempt to hurt us?
No, that didn't occur to me because it's just dumb. The goods that our debt purchased don't disappear, while the debt would. In essence they would be committing suicide and accomplishing virtually nothing.
So no, a very dumb idea did not occur to me. Mea Culpa.
Any time someone says "almost certainly" you should look very hard at what follows, as it's generally someone with no factual knowledge of the subject foisting their BS on the audience.
And I don't agree, you absolutely did take it out of context.
So now what?
You also failed to address my point, which completely refuted your attempt at drawing equivalence, but that's no surprise, you resort to paraphrasing quotes out of context so you're not exactly someone I'd expect rational debate from.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you were as successful as you remember, you're most likely experiencing a confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
You're acting like your scenario is an absolute, when it hardly even applies.
1) not all businesses have access to the financial options you speak of
2) raising prices isn't an option for many businesses because they would lose on price to competitors and be driven out of business.
Your loan scenario only applies in a tiny minority of situations.
First, do you understand what context is? I ask because your reply ignored the context of the last post.
You see, when the discussion is clearly about unemployment rates and how they effect hiring, intelligent people realize that when one says "there's no one to hire when the unemployment rate is 0%" that the discussion is about the unemployed.
Or did you think I was arguing a 0% employment makes the population vanish into thin air, thereby leaving literally no one to hire?
Second, in the context of your statement, you couldn't hire away enough people to even touch the inflation rate, much less actually cause a real change.
I would have added that qualifier before I made such a dubious claim, instead of after having that claim challenged like you did.
TBH, I think we both know that "10 to 20 times" claim was bullshit.
But let's double it. Can you find anything at 4 to 8 bucks instead of 2 to four?
And why would anyone mod you up for what is common knowledge?
With 0% unemployment, there's no one to hire when new jobs open up or current employees need replacing.
Nothing secret about it, just a little common sense.
There's no reason settling, or even losing a lawsuit will cause the stock price to drop.
Specifically, if the suit is seen as being a drain on company resources, then resolving it could easily cause prices to rise. This is especially true if the suit's outcome is more favorable for the company than expected, such as a settlement that is less than the expected judgement if the case went to trial.
Please show me where I can find that in the places you mentioned.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but 4 bucks isn't much and 2 bucks is virtually nothing, so I'm skeptical to say the least.
And let's avoid fudging, kay? Close is ok (10/2 or something) but no bullshit comparisons, please.
Way less than half the service.
Yeah, quite the bargain...
Why would any intellligent person expect the same services in a rural area vs. an urban one?
You brouhjt up guilt by association, and I demonstrated why that assertion was vapid.
I didn't address the ridiculos bklackmail point because the idea that the police would engage in blackmail, which is so easily proven, seemed absurd to me.
So what you're saying is that the police would use your associations to blackmail you, which would require the police to leave a trail of evidence documenting their actitvities that could easily be used against them, and you somehow fail to see why that's ridiculous?
It was clear that some people are slaves to their paranoia, and that they'll let their own fear cause them to engage is ridiculous fear mongering.
"Oh my god! My buddy is a known criminal, and they...they... I can't believe this, those fucking fascist police actually had the gall to QUESTION PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM! Can you believe that! Where is the ACLU when you need them!"
Uh, yeah, the, um, unmitigated horror?
I hope THAT clarifies a few things for you...
When you said "Actually it does" then proceeded to post a reply that has nothing to do with the difference between mandated safety requirements, you demonstrated that you clearly do not know WTF is being discussed.
And no, your post has nothing to do with the difference between safety requirements of the US and EU, which is WTF is being discussed.
Nothing you posted there has anything to do with safety requirements.
Do you even have an idea WTF is being discussed? You statement about the Nissan Micra makes it pretty clear you don't, as a cars performance on safety tests has NOTHING to do with the stringency of the requirements that governing bodies put in place.
You're trying to say one steak tastes better than another because it meets FDA standards, even though they both meet the standard and it doesn't measure flavor anyway.
So why were you bringing up non-safety related advantages as though they demonstrated anything?
Foy my brother. He was a custom fabricator, and he said the only problem was with bikes that actually had the frame fabbed. Most custom shops (OCC for example) use pre-fabbed frames, and those are no problem to insure.
If you want people (Apart from the Slashdot circle jerk group think I mean) to take you seriously, stop intentionally peppering your posts with hyperbole and inaccuracies.
I have an instinctive response to people who think screaming their political diatribes at me is an effective way to interact, that being to ignore you.
For example, "Forget dreaming at all, for we can no longer afford it. Our future has been pissed away in 8 years".
I mean, could you be any more chicken little if you tried? The sky isn't falling, and screaming it over and over like you're doing doesn't make it so.
But that was a nice try, perhaps you should discuss things that are relevant to the topic at hand?
Sorry, I forgot, you're grossly ignorant on the subject, never mind.
And you appear to be as well, bit I digress.
First you assertion that China would be able to eat the loss is, as you so snidely and incorrectly asserted about typour point, "demonstrably wrong". Find an economist who says otherwise, specifically in regard to charging off our debt, please.
You'll fail. Your ignorant assumptions, apart from being factually wrong, display a gross ignorance of economic theory.
You see,?person who is vastly ignorant of economics, as they sell the debt of, economic ignoramus, the debt loses its value, while the hard goods that debt purchsed or financed only deprecite, monetary know-nothing.
Do you understand now why your last post made you look "demonstrably stupid" or do I have continue to point out your gross incompetence?
Because I wasn't wrong.
You, however, cannot use the same reason for not admitting you said a bunch of stupid shit that demonstrated you're not very smart.
I do like that you admitted I destroyed you though.
When told you were wrong and that I disagree, your best attempt at an argument is to call me a liar?
Yes, when I said you weren't capable of rational debate, your "nuh uh you did not" was definitive proof I was right.
And just so we're clear, you don't know what a red herring is. If you did, you'd realize that your total failure to address the obvious dissimilarities between a dictatorship, and a democratically elected government is as far from a red herring as one could get.
By your logic, Nazi Germany or Pol Pot is no different than a freely elcted government.
I have to wonder why you'd try to pass off such a stupid assertion.
I also have to wonder why you think you can dismiss a point you can't refute by pretending it's a red herring.
Again, so we're clear, it matters if a country is a dictatorship or not. Whether Bush mentioned it is irrelevant, as anyone who isn't retarded understands there's a difference.
Your opinion changes nothing.
So, your point is that they would destroy their own economy in an attempt to hurt us?
No, that didn't occur to me because it's just dumb. The goods that our debt purchased don't disappear, while the debt would. In essence they would be committing suicide and accomplishing virtually nothing.
So no, a very dumb idea did not occur to me. Mea Culpa.
Any time someone says "almost certainly" you should look very hard at what follows, as it's generally someone with no factual knowledge of the subject foisting their BS on the audience.
Everybody knows that...
And I don't agree, you absolutely did take it out of context.
So now what?
You also failed to address my point, which completely refuted your attempt at drawing equivalence, but that's no surprise, you resort to paraphrasing quotes out of context so you're not exactly someone I'd expect rational debate from.
No, they cannot "collapse our economy" because the second they started selling ouer debt it would cause a run, making the debt they own worthless.
This is basic economics...
Oh wait, that's not a product either.