I thought about that, and you're probably right. But even if it did, the linker might freak out about the lack of type, and/or the absence of argc/argv. And even if the linker was cool enough about it, since he never returns from main(), the program would dump core/crash.
Congratulations,/.: You've made "went to the library" the coolest thing I've done tonight.
Without profit motive, you get no capital investment. Without capital investment, you get no R&D or factories to produce these weapons. The system you propose would immediately halt technological development, which in the long run, would put us on par with the rest of the world. For the sake of argument, let's say that's fine. Owing to the second law of thermodynamics, the existing manufacturing structure will break, and without capital investment, it won't get repaired or replaced. And without profit motive, there's no reason to continue in business, so production immediately stops. That's not okay. That gives us maybe six weeks' ability to fight wars - even purely defensive ones - at all? Not feasible.
Now - if you leave profit motive alone, but demand that defense contractors do all of their research on spec, assuming all of the risk for a product that may be totally unworkable, hell yes. Let the market work.
My experience was that the school brokered the loan, took a healthy bite for doing so, and of course, got all of the remainder in tuition. However, they weren't lending me the money directly; they were just the go-between.
If we could aggregate these services into a single site, that site could become a web 'portal' where you could accomplish some of your most routine web tasks. If you could get a service provider to create their own 'portal' that comes free with their internet access, that would be even better. Of course, you'd want to distribute sample copies to as many people as possible - preferably by sending them CDs several times a week. Maybe then you could truly get all of America online.
If they lose customers, but get more money per customer, it can work to Netflix's advantage big time. Their costs are mostly on bandwidth, and if they lose 1 million customers, that's 1 million fewer people to feed data to. That amounts to major cost cutting, so even if revenues drop a little but are offset by lower costs then they win.
That's a pretty big if - and it oversimplifies the situation. Really the math works out to something like this:
(Total revenues lost - Cost of mailing physical discs - Bandwidth costs - Content costs) from the vanished subscribers < Increased revenues from hike + Profit margin gained by subscribers driven to streaming only plan - Profit margin lost by subscribers driven to mail-only plans
And then if, like me, someone were tempted to mail in their final discs by taping the mailer to a phone book but, unlike me, actually followed through with it - well, you'd need to take those costs into account as well.
I know exactly the buildings you're thinking of - just off 494/Penn in Richfield.
Weirdly enough, I was thinking of another Twin Cities building that my friends had dubbed 'The Sandcrawler': McNamara Alumni Center at University of Minnesota.
The spammers still won... Sure it's only 3 dollars.. But they still won. Instead of being burned at the stake like they deserve...
How is that justice or a good thing?
It's not perfect, but it is good because Spamhaus gets to stay in business and fight spam for all of us.
Also, the lawyers for e360 during the original case and two subsequent appeals did not work for free. e360 is much worse off than if they'd never gone after Spamhaus for damages. Meanwhile, Spamhaus saw its liability shrink from $11,700,000 to $3, so their money and time were well spent. That's not even counting the effect that this will have on those who might consider challenging them in court in the future.
It's like someone took the air filter off the engine. Now the crap will start to get in, and turn the engine into something it wasn't designed to be - i.e. something no can or will want to use.
Or - they could cancel a portion of the debt they owe to themselves, avoiding the debt ceiling altogether for now - on the condition that both parties agree to work together on the 'grand deal' they couldn't reach this time around.
Attack ad: "Rep. So-and-so voted for legislation that would legalize marijuana."
Counter-attack ad: "My opponent can't tell the difference between voting for a bill, and recommending that a bill be discussed. As such, he is unfit to serve."
How exactly does recommending that the House actually vote on the issue appear to be soft on crime and drugs? I can see that voting one way or another when it comes to adopting the bill might be akin to taking a stance on the issue, but simply recommending that the bill be brought for discussion and then a vote?
It depends how they frame the question. If they point out, as I believe they will, that the prohibition of marijuana at the federal level puts an undue fiscal burden on the states, it might make the floor. At the very least, they're hoping to open up a national discussion by attaching two high-profile names to the bill.
You as a bank lend me $100. I deposit it in my account with you. You now have $100 in deposits and can lend me $1000. I deposit it back into my account and you now have $1000 in deposits and can lend me $10,000. Repeat ad nauseum. In actuality, between us we only have $10 and not $10,000.
The problem is that you've stated the issue with a child-like understanding of the situation, not that a child could game the system as you've described.
First, the bank doesn't have $10 on deposit and the ability to loan $100. The bank has $100 on deposit and the ability to loan $90, if their deposit reserve requirement is 10%. They can loan out, at maximum, $90, which if deposited entirely in the bank, means they'd have another $81 to loan out, and another $9 they'd have to keep in reserve. Hypothetically, this could continue forever in ever-decreasing amounts, and as the number of loans approaches infinity, the sum total loaned out would be $90+$81+$72.90... Using the formula s/(1-a) to determine the sum of the series, you get 100/(1-.9) = $1000. That is the absolute maximum that the bank would be able to put into circulation, assuming that that money is fully deposited in the bank at every step - and it won't be.
People take out loans to finance activities they can't or won't pay for entirely out of pocket, on the theory that their money is put to better use elsewhere. Banks, in turn, pay less in interest to their depositors than they charge on loans. That's one way banks make money. If you were to continually borrow money from the bank only to redeposit it, you would lose money, as you would pay more in interest than you would earn.
This doesn't even take into account the difference between secured and unsecured debt. With unsecured debt, the bank looks at your credit history to gauge how likely it is you'll live up to the borrowing agreement, and is willing to lend you money solely on your promise to pay it back. But the bank is only willing to issue unsecured debt to a point. With secured debt, you promise not only to pay it back, but you also give the bank something they can repossess to offset their losses if you default - like your car or your house. Ever apply for a mortgage? You have to put down a chunk of money down so that you have a stake in the purchase, and you have to sign an affidavit stating that you haven't borrowed that money from any source.
Where does the money come to pay the interest? It doesn't, because it doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist YET. That's how finance works. You engage in some enterprise that creates value faster than your borrowing takes it from you.
For every $ the FED creates and disperses into the money supply, they charge interest on. Which means, they want that $+interest back. But if they only gave out a $ but they want $+interest back, where does the money come from to pay the interest? It doesn't exist. It can never be paid back.
That might be true if money existed in a vacuum, but money is an exchange medium, meaning that I can sell you a good or service in exchange for money, and I can use that same money to buy an unrelated good or service. You won't provide me that service until I present you with money, so the value isn't created until we enter into the transaction. It's the never-ending creation of value that fuels the economy, not simply the circulation of paper money.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, the technology will be sufficiently advanced when I can use a Makerbot to print the pieces necessary to build a Makerbot.
I thought about that, and you're probably right. But even if it did, the linker might freak out about the lack of type, and/or the absence of argc/argv. And even if the linker was cool enough about it, since he never returns from main(), the program would dump core/crash.
/.: You've made "went to the library" the coolest thing I've done tonight.
Congratulations,
There are two reasons I can see...the other one is that he forgot to cast main() as type 'int'.
A flight simulator that works in the cloud.
Without profit motive, you get no capital investment. Without capital investment, you get no R&D or factories to produce these weapons. The system you propose would immediately halt technological development, which in the long run, would put us on par with the rest of the world. For the sake of argument, let's say that's fine. Owing to the second law of thermodynamics, the existing manufacturing structure will break, and without capital investment, it won't get repaired or replaced. And without profit motive, there's no reason to continue in business, so production immediately stops. That's not okay. That gives us maybe six weeks' ability to fight wars - even purely defensive ones - at all? Not feasible.
Now - if you leave profit motive alone, but demand that defense contractors do all of their research on spec, assuming all of the risk for a product that may be totally unworkable, hell yes. Let the market work.
It's probably still for sale because that's not how his name is spelled.
My experience was that the school brokered the loan, took a healthy bite for doing so, and of course, got all of the remainder in tuition. However, they weren't lending me the money directly; they were just the go-between.
Still seems more like "actively engaging in fraud" than "killed product line." :/
*horrified whisper* The ....syrup...it was everywhere....
They still offer the Touchbook for sale. And there's even a second generation. But for my money, the Acer Iconia 6120 is seriously cool.
You're probably okay if you roll it more like a toric prism with sufficiently large inner radius, rather than trying to approximate a cylinder.
So you're saying that I've actually hit upon a 20+year-old idea that offers more functionality than a web service that counts as 'news'?
If we could aggregate these services into a single site, that site could become a web 'portal' where you could accomplish some of your most routine web tasks. If you could get a service provider to create their own 'portal' that comes free with their internet access, that would be even better. Of course, you'd want to distribute sample copies to as many people as possible - preferably by sending them CDs several times a week. Maybe then you could truly get all of America online.
When describing a ratio, 7 of 63 is about 11%,
If they lose customers, but get more money per customer, it can work to Netflix's advantage big time. Their costs are mostly on bandwidth, and if they lose 1 million customers, that's 1 million fewer people to feed data to. That amounts to major cost cutting, so even if revenues drop a little but are offset by lower costs then they win.
That's a pretty big if - and it oversimplifies the situation. Really the math works out to something like this:
(Total revenues lost - Cost of mailing physical discs - Bandwidth costs - Content costs) from the vanished subscribers < Increased revenues from hike + Profit margin gained by subscribers driven to streaming only plan - Profit margin lost by subscribers driven to mail-only plans
And then if, like me, someone were tempted to mail in their final discs by taping the mailer to a phone book but, unlike me, actually followed through with it - well, you'd need to take those costs into account as well.
I know exactly the buildings you're thinking of - just off 494/Penn in Richfield.
Weirdly enough, I was thinking of another Twin Cities building that my friends had dubbed 'The Sandcrawler': McNamara Alumni Center at University of Minnesota.
The spammers still won... Sure it's only 3 dollars.. But they still won. Instead of being burned at the stake like they deserve... How is that justice or a good thing?
It's not perfect, but it is good because Spamhaus gets to stay in business and fight spam for all of us.
Also, the lawyers for e360 during the original case and two subsequent appeals did not work for free. e360 is much worse off than if they'd never gone after Spamhaus for damages. Meanwhile, Spamhaus saw its liability shrink from $11,700,000 to $3, so their money and time were well spent. That's not even counting the effect that this will have on those who might consider challenging them in court in the future.
It's like someone took the air filter off the engine. Now the crap will start to get in, and turn the engine into something it wasn't designed to be - i.e. something no can or will want to use.
Or - they could cancel a portion of the debt they owe to themselves, avoiding the debt ceiling altogether for now - on the condition that both parties agree to work together on the 'grand deal' they couldn't reach this time around.
Attack ad: "Rep. So-and-so voted for legislation that would legalize marijuana."
Counter-attack ad: "My opponent can't tell the difference between voting for a bill, and recommending that a bill be discussed. As such, he is unfit to serve."
How exactly does recommending that the House actually vote on the issue appear to be soft on crime and drugs? I can see that voting one way or another when it comes to adopting the bill might be akin to taking a stance on the issue, but simply recommending that the bill be brought for discussion and then a vote?
It depends how they frame the question. If they point out, as I believe they will, that the prohibition of marijuana at the federal level puts an undue fiscal burden on the states, it might make the floor. At the very least, they're hoping to open up a national discussion by attaching two high-profile names to the bill.
LOL, even a child can figure this exploit out.
You as a bank lend me $100. I deposit it in my account with you. You now have $100 in deposits and can lend me $1000. I deposit it back into my account and you now have $1000 in deposits and can lend me $10,000. Repeat ad nauseum. In actuality, between us we only have $10 and not $10,000.
The problem is that you've stated the issue with a child-like understanding of the situation, not that a child could game the system as you've described.
First, the bank doesn't have $10 on deposit and the ability to loan $100. The bank has $100 on deposit and the ability to loan $90, if their deposit reserve requirement is 10%. They can loan out, at maximum, $90, which if deposited entirely in the bank, means they'd have another $81 to loan out, and another $9 they'd have to keep in reserve. Hypothetically, this could continue forever in ever-decreasing amounts, and as the number of loans approaches infinity, the sum total loaned out would be $90+$81+$72.90... Using the formula s/(1-a) to determine the sum of the series, you get 100/(1-.9) = $1000. That is the absolute maximum that the bank would be able to put into circulation, assuming that that money is fully deposited in the bank at every step - and it won't be.
People take out loans to finance activities they can't or won't pay for entirely out of pocket, on the theory that their money is put to better use elsewhere. Banks, in turn, pay less in interest to their depositors than they charge on loans. That's one way banks make money. If you were to continually borrow money from the bank only to redeposit it, you would lose money, as you would pay more in interest than you would earn.
This doesn't even take into account the difference between secured and unsecured debt. With unsecured debt, the bank looks at your credit history to gauge how likely it is you'll live up to the borrowing agreement, and is willing to lend you money solely on your promise to pay it back. But the bank is only willing to issue unsecured debt to a point. With secured debt, you promise not only to pay it back, but you also give the bank something they can repossess to offset their losses if you default - like your car or your house. Ever apply for a mortgage? You have to put down a chunk of money down so that you have a stake in the purchase, and you have to sign an affidavit stating that you haven't borrowed that money from any source.
Where does the money come to pay the interest? It doesn't, because it doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist YET. That's how finance works. You engage in some enterprise that creates value faster than your borrowing takes it from you.
For every $ the FED creates and disperses into the money supply, they charge interest on. Which means, they want that $+interest back. But if they only gave out a $ but they want $+interest back, where does the money come from to pay the interest? It doesn't exist. It can never be paid back.
That might be true if money existed in a vacuum, but money is an exchange medium, meaning that I can sell you a good or service in exchange for money, and I can use that same money to buy an unrelated good or service. You won't provide me that service until I present you with money, so the value isn't created until we enter into the transaction. It's the never-ending creation of value that fuels the economy, not simply the circulation of paper money.
*eats moldy sandwich* Oh, I'm ruined! *wahahahah* Why why why?
You have an inner Bertrand Russell just begging to be heard..