Sure. Starving yourself while not using your muscles is a perfect recipe for losing muscle-mass. Then, after your "diet" is over, you have less muscles, so less calorie-burn, so you gain the weigth back even easier. Only this time the fat-percentage is higher than it used to be.
You're wrong about aerobic exersize not helping maintain and build muscle by the way. It is true that muscle-mass is most efficiently built with a low number of high-intensity anaerobic exersizes, but that doesn't mean that regularily running the maraton will give you less muscles than sitting still will. That'll do more for your oxygen-absorbtion (heart, lungs) than for your muscles though.
Yeah. But it means that the difference between the two numbers grow -- not only in absolute numbers, but also as a fraction. People are generally willing to consider two numbers that really differ by a single-digit-percentage as being "similar", this changes when over time the numbers grow more and more different.
Currently few people know or care about the difference. I predice that'll change over time. Ignoring 2-5% of difference is one thing, it's harder to ignore when one number is 25 larger than the other. (granted, that'll take time, you need 1024**9 for that, and currently with TB we're only at 1024**4 if we double every year (which is probably optimistic) it'll take 50 years. If we double every 2 years, it'll take 100 years.)
Sucky and hard-to-watch beats -not-available-at-all-
Sure, the proper DVD is even better, but by the time that is available (actually before), the pirated copies are *also* based on DVD-rips, so they remain superior.
Comparing a cam from say january with a DVD that is only available in december is unfair. In january the cam is the best-available. In december the pirated dvd-rip is the best-available. At no point in time is the actual DVD the superior product.
No. I don't think you are. Or you are, but for a different reason.
Even the NSA very very probably can not recover any useful information from a disk overwritten the way I wrote. They have lots of money and expertise, but the laws of physics apply to them too.
But they could get at the information on your computer by other means that you'd be unlikely to detect, if they really wanted to. For example, if the information is from the net and you don't encrypt everything, they could easily wiretap your broadband. Getting a hardware-keylogger into your keyboard would be possible too, aswell as dozens of other tricks.
That's not a feature of the piracy, that's a feature of the artificial market-restrictions (offset theatrical and DVD-releases) made possible by the monopoly that is copyright. Most pirated movies these days are dvd-rips in any case, certainly the ones you get at the time when you could've choosen to buy the DVD.
The ones from cams are *also* superior to the DVDs, for the simple reason that they're available at a time when the alternative DVD is -no- DVD.
DRM-products *always*, by design, suffer from being inferior to the pirated versions. This is not an accident, but by design.
Think about it. The entire point about DRM is to prevent you from doing certain things.
The pirated version is the same, except it *doesn't* try to prevent you from doing things.
It follows that from a practical point of view, the pirated copy is superior. It can do anything the original can, plus the things which the original prevents you from doing.
It's worse than that actually, because as the sizes grow, the disparity grows too.
When you say 1KB, the difference is 2.4% or 24 bytes.
When you say 1MB, the difference is 4.8% or 48KB.
When you say 1GB, the difference is 7.4% or 74MB.
When you say 1TB, the difference is 10% or 100GB.
So, the higher the capacity, the more difference is there between binary and decimal units. 2.4% difference is significant enough, but it's not as bad as 10%. Lacking 100GB, or a full tenth of the capacity is however quite noticeable.
That's nonsense. It isn't even true in theory. (at some point the remaining charge is below the noise-floor) If it wasn't you could store an infinite amount of data on a drive by simply filling it once with dataset1, overwrite by dataset2, overwrite by dataset3 and so on. You claim dataset1 will always be recoverable, so in this method, you could recover each of the sets and have stored triple amounts of data on the drive. You claim *any* amount of overwriting will be insufficient, so I guess I can store 1000 datasets on the drive then. Cool. Hint: The real world doesn't work like that
Secondly, even if in theory you where rigth (which you aren't), in *practice* most data is not valuable enough that theres much real risk that anyone will recover it, even after something as simple as a one-time-all-nulls overwrite. (which is just about the suckiest overwrite you can do) Yes, in that case an expert lab *can* recover it, but odds are it won't happen.
In practice, if you do the standard wipe, which is usually some variant of all-nulls, all ones, 3 times random, there is -zip- chance that anyone will be able to get at the data that was once on the platter.
Now, what many (clueless people) do are "format" the drive or "delete" the files. These functions don't overwrite even once 99% of the platter, so files removed in this manner are certainly recoverable -- they're there in plaintext, just not referenced from the filesystem anymore. Something as simple as "cat/dev/hda | strings" will recover huge amounts of text from a hard-drive which has been erased in this manner.
Part of it is also that muscles burn significantly more calories than fat -- even when resting.
Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".
So, running X miles may only burn Y calories -- during the actual exersize. But it'll *also* let you burn some extra calories thereafter, the extra muscles you build burn calories even when you sleep.
So, a fit person will burn more calories than an unfit person, even when both are watching television.
You seem to confuse wealth with money. Obviously, aslong as the US Central Bank doesn't print new dollars, the total amount of dollars stay constant.
Inflation is if the useful stuff you can get for a certain amount of cash gets less and less. It's not inflation if in year X everyone has 1 dollar, which can be used for buying one bread (for example) and then some year later, productivity has increased to double, so everyone now has 2 dollars, each of which can still pay for one bread.
In practice we have, and *wish* to have, sligth inflation, in the 1-5%/year range. That has numerous benefits, perhaps you're aware of them, if not, tough luck, I don't feel like playing the teacher:-)
Fact is, the average American (or Norwegian, or indeed *human*) is a lot *wealthier* today than he was a generation ago. He also has a larger supply of *cash*, but the two are unrelated: it's perfectly possible to have more cash, but be poorer if there's been inflation, or the other way around: to have the same amount of cash and be richer, if there's been deflation.
Actually, punishments are for 3 reasons. But you're rigth, none of them are for "revenge" or "anger".
First, as you say, locking someone away obviously protects the rest of society from the consequences of their actions for the duration they're locked down. If this was the only concern though, all punishments would be jail forever, which ain't the case.
Secondly, we hope that being punished for a certain action, makes you less likely to do it again. For many notorious criminals this is quite doubtful, for other people it may work better; if you get a ticket for parking in the wrong spot you may well be more careful with parking for a while thereafter.
Third though, and probably more important than the second, we hope that the knowledge that you *MAY* be punished if you do certain things will keep you from doing them. This certainly works to some degree, peope *do* infact commit more crimes when they think, for whatever reason, that the chances of getting punished for it are slim to none.
The question is a good one. Obviously the only sane answer is to do some kind of attempt at weighing the severity of the impairment up against the problems of forbidding driving when under that impairment.
Being intoxicated does make you a more dangerous driver. Having to take a cab, or arrange a clean driver once in a while is a relatively minor problem. I thus think that the ban on drunk driving is perfectly justified.
And yeah, if you're very tired you also should avoid driving. Defining "very" is a tricky thing though. I do know that I've walked to work a few times after my twin-girls had prevented me from sleeping more than 2-3 hours. Judging from how I was feeling, that was a smart choice.
You're missing that allthough they've got $200 less, they've got something else instead (my product) that they personally value HIGHER than that. Otherwise they wouldn't have bougth it.
Yes, they could have made the product themselves. But here's the thing: It's perfectly possible that I am capable of making the product in say one work-day, while they'd have needed 3, or been unable to alltogether. In that case they are *better* off buying the product from me, and in return perhaps sell *me* some product which *they* are capable of creating faster/cheaper/better than me.
People are different. They have different resources (land, raw-materials, skills, education, physical characteristics, psychological characteristics), thus *everyone* gets richer from letting people do what they're good at, and exchange the result for products they're *not* good at making.
I'm good at programming. I'm terrible at car-repairs. If I make a small program for a good mechanic, and he fixes my car in the meantime, we're *BOTH* better off than we would be if we didn't trade. (the result is a better program, and a more well-repaired car than would otherwise be the case)
Money means the trade can be indirect, rather than direct, but the overall win remains.
If every human had *exactly* the same skills, and exactly the same raw-materials and so on, then sure, trade would make no sense and generate no wealth: you could just aswell do everything by yourself.
This is, quite simply, not true. If wealth could not be generated, then humanity would, by nessecity, be as poor today as we ever where, which clearly fails the laugh-test.
The buyer bougth the product at his own free will for $1200. He would only do that if the product, to him, was more valuable than the money. Indeed he *benefited* from the transaction. If he didn't, he wouldn't have entered into it afterall.
Notice that *wealth* is not the same thing as *money*. New *money* obviously comes into existence whenever the issuer decides to start printing some more. That doesn't make society any richer though, the pieces of paper have no value in themselves.
But when I, using my own two hands, for example convert a tree to a chair, and sell the chair for more than the tree cost, then I created actual wealth, actual value.
No. That isn't true. Well, it is true that lots of people get screwed in any economy. But it is *not* true that any economy is a zero-sum-game where value is only moved around but not generated.
If I borrow $1000 from you, and use that for buying raw-materials, I may be able to, using my own two hands, create some product which may then be sold for $1200. I can then pay you $1100 back, and keep $100 of profit myself. Nobody was "screwed" in this transaction.
Sure, you can argue that the $200 was the result of my work, and I was thus screwed by getting to keep only $100 of it. But the thing is, your $1000 has to come from somewhere too -- likely the direct or indirect result of *your* work. So in reality, I borrow some of your work, and in the process increase the value of it.
That is why *investing* is fundamentally useful, and contributes to GENERATING wealth, while *speculating* as in day-trading is fundamentally stupid and non-productive. One day-trader is only able to get exactly as much richer as someone else gets poorer. A zero-sum game. People day-trade anyway, because 75% of all people are convinced they're smarter than average. In my experience, 95% of all day-traders are convinced they are smarter than the average trader/investor. Which obviously ain't true, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them.
Limited supply isn't enough. Lots of stuff have limited supply, but are nevertheless worth zilch.
US dollars are worth something to you because others will probably be willing to make exchanges against it later. In other words, if you accept $10 from me now, you will probably be able to exchange that for something that *has* actual use to you lateron.
You're rigth about supply and demand, but demand for something is always for a *reason*. People demand oil because, ultimately, they want to drive their cars, or have their houses heated. Dollars don't have any such practical use. The only reason for demanding dollars is because you want to exchange them for something that *has* practical use at some later point.
You see this clearly when a currency goes into hyper-inflation: People stop demanding it, for the perfectly simple reason that they no longer think they'll be able to exchange the money for something with actual use lateron.
Oil, Bread, Beer, Clothes or Cars never go into HyperInflation -- they have an intrinsic use, so there's a lower bound for their value. That ain't so for money. There is no fundamental reason the dollar cannot fall to 1/10th 1/100th or 1/1000000th its current value.
I don't see why you need "significant" money early on.
Start with $10, offer anyone to bet $1, toss a die, and get $5 back if they get a 6. Odds that you'll ever go broke by this method is aproximately 5%, and if it happens, it'll happen early (in the first 5 tries). If you've got $20 in starting-capital, odds that you'll ever go broke are less than 1%.
And 5 payout with 1/6 chance is actually a better gambling-deal than many (most?) typical gambling-offers.
You don't though, need much starting-capital for a virtual casino. It doesn't take terribly many gamblings to virtually guarantee that you're in the black, and after that your capital grows exponentially, aslong as you can attract enough players.
It makes no sense at all, since $10 out of your own cash would be plenty to get people interested, you may be unlucky and lose it on the first rounds, but more likely (since the math is always on the casion-owners side) you'll end up with $20 after a few spins. At which point you can increase prices and max-bets and proceed from there.
Without any actual income, they have no way of paying out more than they get in. Which makes it precisely equivalent to the lottery. Sure, one can get lucky and get richer by playing the lottery, however the sum total of all lottery-players certainly get poorer.
Invest in something that *has* value and/or generates income instead. Stock is fine. If you want higher risk and higher pay-out, use gearing. It's easy to gear so that your pay-out is 3 times what the stock-market pays. This increases your risk proportionally though.... (actually sligthly more than that because of overhead, fees etc)
The difference is that the first is an arbitrary choice by you, the second is a part of the HTML standard.
The first would work exactly as well as the second, *IF* everybody made precisely the same choice of class-name that you made. Which is unlikely.
span class="H1" could replace h1 too, only people wouldn't be consistent so we'd have H1, h1, Header1, MainHeader, Header_1, and half a gazillion others.
My parent-generation spent every cent they had for paying back the mortgage as quickly as humanly possible. Being "debt-free" was their number one goal. As a consequence, many of them today have 200-400K invested in housing (the one they themselves live in) and effectively -zero- invested elsewhere.
Now this is a very low risk strategy, if the main value you derive from the house is that you yourself can live there, then you're pretty well shielded; the practical value of a house to live in doesn't change much if the stock-market crashes, for example. (the *selling-price* of the house will change, but that matters little to you aslong as you *don't* sell)
Me, I've choosen to spread my savings more. I also save something like 25% of my income. But I *don't* save ALL of that in the house. I spend aproximately half of it for paying back the mortgage, and the other half for varied investments all over the world.
The practical result is that I'll spend longer before I'm debt-free than my parents did. But I don't spend longer before I'm -net- debt free. (i.e. before my savings are larger than my debt) Indeed, with average luck I'll spend shorter, because over the long term the stock-market has tended to outperform the interest on a mortgage.
You're overstating it. There's no indication that the *ONLY* reason women didn't do these things historically was being prevented by men.
Sure, that was *one* of the reasons, but not the only one.
I agree though that it's completely underwhelming that a woman is capable of putting together a PC -- after having been adviced on part-list by her nerd boyfriend and having him assist her. Many women are even capable of putting together a PC with no help whatsoever, which is also not really a spectaculat feat.
You are being extremely silly. On one hand, you claim that the 1750-1800 brougth us "the real start" of the industrial revolution, but on the other hand you claim that computers are nothing new at all, because the basis of the theory was developed before 1950. The theoretical basis for the industrial revolution, such as for example the idea of getting energy from water turning a wheel or from the combustion of carbon-containing fuels was known for hundreds or thousands of years before it started to. You can make all discoveries sound trivial if you try hard enough.
There is a large and real difference between having a theory for digital computations on one hand, and having several billions computers actually existing in the real world.
The first is something that 99.999% of the population wouldn't even have heard of, the latter transforms society fundamentally. Computers is a *real* *large* difference between 1950 and 2000. Communications is a second, though it's enabled by computers too. There is a large and real difference between portable radio senders/receivers existing, and being used by for example the military on the one hand, and having a mobile-phone in the hands of most 12-year-olds on the other hand. These things transforms society.
Travel is a third. Yes, jet-planes *existed* in 1950. Not on a scale that let the *average* Norwegian (for example) travel thousands of kilometres by them at a cost payable even for the lower classes. There's a difference between knowing that this exotic thing exists on the one hand, and traveling by it 3 times a year on the other.
And yes, miniturisation too. A computer filling a room, and being operated by 20 full-time staff may be fundamentally, theoretically, the same beast as a modern laptop. The *practical* implications of its existence are however *completely* different.
Change *is* accelerating, but you can deal with that by projecting for a shorter distance. Which has the drawback of showing you wrong sooner, but oh well.
A lot more changed from 1950-2000 than did from 1750-1800. A *LOT* more. Guessing now about the year 2057 is a lot harder than it was in 1950 to guess about the year 2000. (and even that produced plenty of funny errors, in both directions. We ain't got flying cars, and we ain't colonized mars, but every kid carries a comm-badge, and computers are available in sizes smaller than room-full.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Starving yourself while not using your muscles is a perfect recipe for losing muscle-mass. Then, after your "diet" is over, you have less muscles, so less calorie-burn, so you gain the weigth back even easier. Only this time the fat-percentage is higher than it used to be.
You're wrong about aerobic exersize not helping maintain and build muscle by the way. It is true that muscle-mass is most efficiently built with a low number of high-intensity anaerobic exersizes, but that doesn't mean that regularily running the maraton will give you less muscles than sitting still will. That'll do more for your oxygen-absorbtion (heart, lungs) than for your muscles though.
Yeah. But it means that the difference between the two numbers grow -- not only in absolute numbers, but also as a fraction. People are generally willing to consider two numbers that really differ by a single-digit-percentage as being "similar", this changes when over time the numbers grow more and more different. Currently few people know or care about the difference. I predice that'll change over time. Ignoring 2-5% of difference is one thing, it's harder to ignore when one number is 25 larger than the other. (granted, that'll take time, you need 1024**9 for that, and currently with TB we're only at 1024**4 if we double every year (which is probably optimistic) it'll take 50 years. If we double every 2 years, it'll take 100 years.)
Sucky and hard-to-watch beats -not-available-at-all-
Sure, the proper DVD is even better, but by the time that is available (actually before), the pirated copies are *also* based on DVD-rips, so they remain superior.
Comparing a cam from say january with a DVD that is only available in december is unfair. In january the cam is the best-available. In december the pirated dvd-rip is the best-available. At no point in time is the actual DVD the superior product.
No. I don't think you are. Or you are, but for a different reason.
Even the NSA very very probably can not recover any useful information from a disk overwritten the way I wrote. They have lots of money and expertise, but the laws of physics apply to them too.
But they could get at the information on your computer by other means that you'd be unlikely to detect, if they really wanted to. For example, if the information is from the net and you don't encrypt everything, they could easily wiretap your broadband. Getting a hardware-keylogger into your keyboard would be possible too, aswell as dozens of other tricks.
That's not a feature of the piracy, that's a feature of the artificial market-restrictions (offset theatrical and DVD-releases) made possible by the monopoly that is copyright. Most pirated movies these days are dvd-rips in any case, certainly the ones you get at the time when you could've choosen to buy the DVD. The ones from cams are *also* superior to the DVDs, for the simple reason that they're available at a time when the alternative DVD is -no- DVD.
DRM-products *always*, by design, suffer from being inferior to the pirated versions. This is not an accident, but by design.
Think about it. The entire point about DRM is to prevent you from doing certain things.
The pirated version is the same, except it *doesn't* try to prevent you from doing things.
It follows that from a practical point of view, the pirated copy is superior. It can do anything the original can, plus the things which the original prevents you from doing.
- When you say 1KB, the difference is 2.4% or 24 bytes.
- When you say 1MB, the difference is 4.8% or 48KB.
- When you say 1GB, the difference is 7.4% or 74MB.
- When you say 1TB, the difference is 10% or 100GB.
So, the higher the capacity, the more difference is there between binary and decimal units. 2.4% difference is significant enough, but it's not as bad as 10%. Lacking 100GB, or a full tenth of the capacity is however quite noticeable.That's nonsense. It isn't even true in theory. (at some point the remaining charge is below the noise-floor) If it wasn't you could store an infinite amount of data on a drive by simply filling it once with dataset1, overwrite by dataset2, overwrite by dataset3 and so on. You claim dataset1 will always be recoverable, so in this method, you could recover each of the sets and have stored triple amounts of data on the drive. You claim *any* amount of overwriting will be insufficient, so I guess I can store 1000 datasets on the drive then. Cool. Hint: The real world doesn't work like that
/dev/hda | strings" will recover huge amounts of text from a hard-drive which has been erased in this manner.
Secondly, even if in theory you where rigth (which you aren't), in *practice* most data is not valuable enough that theres much real risk that anyone will recover it, even after something as simple as a one-time-all-nulls overwrite. (which is just about the suckiest overwrite you can do) Yes, in that case an expert lab *can* recover it, but odds are it won't happen.
In practice, if you do the standard wipe, which is usually some variant of all-nulls, all ones, 3 times random, there is -zip- chance that anyone will be able to get at the data that was once on the platter.
Now, what many (clueless people) do are "format" the drive or "delete" the files. These functions don't overwrite even once 99% of the platter, so files removed in this manner are certainly recoverable -- they're there in plaintext, just not referenced from the filesystem anymore. Something as simple as "cat
Part of it is also that muscles burn significantly more calories than fat -- even when resting.
Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".
So, running X miles may only burn Y calories -- during the actual exersize. But it'll *also* let you burn some extra calories thereafter, the extra muscles you build burn calories even when you sleep.
So, a fit person will burn more calories than an unfit person, even when both are watching television.
You seem to confuse wealth with money. Obviously, aslong as the US Central Bank doesn't print new dollars, the total amount of dollars stay constant.
:-)
Inflation is if the useful stuff you can get for a certain amount of cash gets less and less. It's not inflation if in year X everyone has 1 dollar, which can be used for buying one bread (for example) and then some year later, productivity has increased to double, so everyone now has 2 dollars, each of which can still pay for one bread.
In practice we have, and *wish* to have, sligth inflation, in the 1-5%/year range. That has numerous benefits, perhaps you're aware of them, if not, tough luck, I don't feel like playing the teacher
Fact is, the average American (or Norwegian, or indeed *human*) is a lot *wealthier* today than he was a generation ago. He also has a larger supply of *cash*, but the two are unrelated: it's perfectly possible to have more cash, but be poorer if there's been inflation, or the other way around: to have the same amount of cash and be richer, if there's been deflation.
Actually, punishments are for 3 reasons. But you're rigth, none of them are for "revenge" or "anger".
First, as you say, locking someone away obviously protects the rest of society from the consequences of their actions for the duration they're locked down. If this was the only concern though, all punishments would be jail forever, which ain't the case.
Secondly, we hope that being punished for a certain action, makes you less likely to do it again. For many notorious criminals this is quite doubtful, for other people it may work better; if you get a ticket for parking in the wrong spot you may well be more careful with parking for a while thereafter.
Third though, and probably more important than the second, we hope that the knowledge that you *MAY* be punished if you do certain things will keep you from doing them. This certainly works to some degree, peope *do* infact commit more crimes when they think, for whatever reason, that the chances of getting punished for it are slim to none.
The question is a good one. Obviously the only sane answer is to do some kind of attempt at weighing the severity of the impairment up against the problems of forbidding driving when under that impairment.
Being intoxicated does make you a more dangerous driver. Having to take a cab, or arrange a clean driver once in a while is a relatively minor problem. I thus think that the ban on drunk driving is perfectly justified.
And yeah, if you're very tired you also should avoid driving. Defining "very" is a tricky thing though. I do know that I've walked to work a few times after my twin-girls had prevented me from sleeping more than 2-3 hours. Judging from how I was feeling, that was a smart choice.
You're missing that allthough they've got $200 less, they've got something else instead (my product) that they personally value HIGHER than that. Otherwise they wouldn't have bougth it.
Yes, they could have made the product themselves. But here's the thing: It's perfectly possible that I am capable of making the product in say one work-day, while they'd have needed 3, or been unable to alltogether. In that case they are *better* off buying the product from me, and in return perhaps sell *me* some product which *they* are capable of creating faster/cheaper/better than me.
People are different. They have different resources (land, raw-materials, skills, education, physical characteristics, psychological characteristics), thus *everyone* gets richer from letting people do what they're good at, and exchange the result for products they're *not* good at making.
I'm good at programming. I'm terrible at car-repairs. If I make a small program for a good mechanic, and he fixes my car in the meantime, we're *BOTH* better off than we would be if we didn't trade. (the result is a better program, and a more well-repaired car than would otherwise be the case)
Money means the trade can be indirect, rather than direct, but the overall win remains.
If every human had *exactly* the same skills, and exactly the same raw-materials and so on, then sure, trade would make no sense and generate no wealth: you could just aswell do everything by yourself.
Doubt it. I pay aproximately $40 for 10mbit symetrical (i.e. 10mbit in both direction) if I paid $50, I'd get 25mbit/symetrical.
Norway. Costs of living aproximately 20-30% *higher* than in the US.
This is, quite simply, not true. If wealth could not be generated, then humanity would, by nessecity, be as poor today as we ever where, which clearly fails the laugh-test.
The buyer bougth the product at his own free will for $1200. He would only do that if the product, to him, was more valuable than the money. Indeed he *benefited* from the transaction. If he didn't, he wouldn't have entered into it afterall.
Notice that *wealth* is not the same thing as *money*. New *money* obviously comes into existence whenever the issuer decides to start printing some more. That doesn't make society any richer though, the pieces of paper have no value in themselves.
But when I, using my own two hands, for example convert a tree to a chair, and sell the chair for more than the tree cost, then I created actual wealth, actual value.
No. That isn't true. Well, it is true that lots of people get screwed in any economy. But it is *not* true that any economy is a zero-sum-game where value is only moved around but not generated.
If I borrow $1000 from you, and use that for buying raw-materials, I may be able to, using my own two hands, create some product which may then be sold for $1200. I can then pay you $1100 back, and keep $100 of profit myself. Nobody was "screwed" in this transaction.
Sure, you can argue that the $200 was the result of my work, and I was thus screwed by getting to keep only $100 of it. But the thing is, your $1000 has to come from somewhere too -- likely the direct or indirect result of *your* work. So in reality, I borrow some of your work, and in the process increase the value of it.
That is why *investing* is fundamentally useful, and contributes to GENERATING wealth, while *speculating* as in day-trading is fundamentally stupid and non-productive. One day-trader is only able to get exactly as much richer as someone else gets poorer. A zero-sum game. People day-trade anyway, because 75% of all people are convinced they're smarter than average. In my experience, 95% of all day-traders are convinced they are smarter than the average trader/investor. Which obviously ain't true, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them.
Limited supply isn't enough. Lots of stuff have limited supply, but are nevertheless worth zilch.
US dollars are worth something to you because others will probably be willing to make exchanges against it later. In other words, if you accept $10 from me now, you will probably be able to exchange that for something that *has* actual use to you lateron.
You're rigth about supply and demand, but demand for something is always for a *reason*. People demand oil because, ultimately, they want to drive their cars, or have their houses heated. Dollars don't have any such practical use. The only reason for demanding dollars is because you want to exchange them for something that *has* practical use at some later point.
You see this clearly when a currency goes into hyper-inflation: People stop demanding it, for the perfectly simple reason that they no longer think they'll be able to exchange the money for something with actual use lateron.
Oil, Bread, Beer, Clothes or Cars never go into HyperInflation -- they have an intrinsic use, so there's a lower bound for their value. That ain't so for money. There is no fundamental reason the dollar cannot fall to 1/10th 1/100th or 1/1000000th its current value.
I don't see why you need "significant" money early on.
Start with $10, offer anyone to bet $1, toss a die, and get $5 back if they get a 6. Odds that you'll ever go broke by this method is aproximately 5%, and if it happens, it'll happen early (in the first 5 tries). If you've got $20 in starting-capital, odds that you'll ever go broke are less than 1%.
And 5 payout with 1/6 chance is actually a better gambling-deal than many (most?) typical gambling-offers.
You don't though, need much starting-capital for a virtual casino. It doesn't take terribly many gamblings to virtually guarantee that you're in the black, and after that your capital grows exponentially, aslong as you can attract enough players.
It makes no sense at all, since $10 out of your own cash would be plenty to get people interested, you may be unlucky and lose it on the first rounds, but more likely (since the math is always on the casion-owners side) you'll end up with $20 after a few spins. At which point you can increase prices and max-bets and proceed from there.
Without any actual income, they have no way of paying out more than they get in. Which makes it precisely equivalent to the lottery. Sure, one can get lucky and get richer by playing the lottery, however the sum total of all lottery-players certainly get poorer.
Invest in something that *has* value and/or generates income instead. Stock is fine. If you want higher risk and higher pay-out, use gearing. It's easy to gear so that your pay-out is 3 times what the stock-market pays. This increases your risk proportionally though.... (actually sligthly more than that because of overhead, fees etc)
The difference is that the first is an arbitrary choice by you, the second is a part of the HTML standard.
The first would work exactly as well as the second, *IF* everybody made precisely the same choice of class-name that you made. Which is unlikely.
span class="H1" could replace h1 too, only people wouldn't be consistent so we'd have H1, h1, Header1, MainHeader, Header_1, and half a gazillion others.
It depends though. And isn't always stupid.
My parent-generation spent every cent they had for paying back the mortgage as quickly as humanly possible. Being "debt-free" was their number one goal. As a consequence, many of them today have 200-400K invested in housing (the one they themselves live in) and effectively -zero- invested elsewhere.
Now this is a very low risk strategy, if the main value you derive from the house is that you yourself can live there, then you're pretty well shielded; the practical value of a house to live in doesn't change much if the stock-market crashes, for example. (the *selling-price* of the house will change, but that matters little to you aslong as you *don't* sell)
Me, I've choosen to spread my savings more. I also save something like 25% of my income. But I *don't* save ALL of that in the house. I spend aproximately half of it for paying back the mortgage, and the other half for varied investments all over the world.
The practical result is that I'll spend longer before I'm debt-free than my parents did. But I don't spend longer before I'm -net- debt free. (i.e. before my savings are larger than my debt) Indeed, with average luck I'll spend shorter, because over the long term the stock-market has tended to outperform the interest on a mortgage.
You're overstating it. There's no indication that the *ONLY* reason women didn't do these things historically was being prevented by men.
Sure, that was *one* of the reasons, but not the only one.
I agree though that it's completely underwhelming that a woman is capable of putting together a PC -- after having been adviced on part-list by her nerd boyfriend and having him assist her. Many women are even capable of putting together a PC with no help whatsoever, which is also not really a spectaculat feat.
You are being extremely silly. On one hand, you claim that the 1750-1800 brougth us "the real start" of the industrial revolution, but on the other hand you claim that computers are nothing new at all, because the basis of the theory was developed before 1950. The theoretical basis for the industrial revolution, such as for example the idea of getting energy from water turning a wheel or from the combustion of carbon-containing fuels was known for hundreds or thousands of years before it started to. You can make all discoveries sound trivial if you try hard enough.
There is a large and real difference between having a theory for digital computations on one hand, and having several billions computers actually existing in the real world.
The first is something that 99.999% of the population wouldn't even have heard of, the latter transforms society fundamentally. Computers is a *real* *large* difference between 1950 and 2000. Communications is a second, though it's enabled by computers too. There is a large and real difference between portable radio senders/receivers existing, and being used by for example the military on the one hand, and having a mobile-phone in the hands of most 12-year-olds on the other hand. These things transforms society.
Travel is a third. Yes, jet-planes *existed* in 1950. Not on a scale that let the *average* Norwegian (for example) travel thousands of kilometres by them at a cost payable even for the lower classes. There's a difference between knowing that this exotic thing exists on the one hand, and traveling by it 3 times a year on the other.
And yes, miniturisation too. A computer filling a room, and being operated by 20 full-time staff may be fundamentally, theoretically, the same beast as a modern laptop. The *practical* implications of its existence are however *completely* different.
Change *is* accelerating, but you can deal with that by projecting for a shorter distance. Which has the drawback of showing you wrong sooner, but oh well.
A lot more changed from 1950-2000 than did from 1750-1800. A *LOT* more. Guessing now about the year 2057 is a lot harder than it was in 1950 to guess about the year 2000. (and even that produced plenty of funny errors, in both directions. We ain't got flying cars, and we ain't colonized mars, but every kid carries a comm-badge, and computers are available in sizes smaller than room-full.)