When Kim launches another ICBM over Japan, is that an act of war and can we respond or not?
If one suggests that a missile launch is not a threat or act of war, then nothing is. Especially considering the fact that Kim could be tipping that missile with nuclear bombs, we'd never know until it was too fucking late and Tokyo or Portland is an ash heap.
While I doubt Kim is that stupid, there is no indication that he is smart either.
Well, IMHO the cry of Racism is so over used, that it has lost all meaning, to the point where Charlottesville violence was initially panned by a lot of people (including me). Crying wolf works until it doesn't, and we have actually reached that point.
And you are probably right, that it was sarcastic trolling, but there is a very real chance it wasn't. And that doubt is telling.
Here are my questions I ask myself when buying a movie:
1) Do I Really like the movie? 2) Am I going to want to watch it a lot? 3) Can I spread the "cost" of the movie over the number of times I am gonna watch it enough to not wince when I am buying it?
That's it. And since #2 is dependent upon #1 it is really comes down to how well I like the movie. As the prices go up, the less likely I am going to buy a movie. As it stands now, there are only a couple movies a year at most that I am willing to buy.
In the meantime, I'll wait for it to show up on Cable. I don't even pay for any of the Premium Movie channels, because quite frankly, they don't offer me enough of the movies I want to watch to justify paying extra each month.
IMHO the Entertainment industry doesn't really understand there is a lot of competition for entertainment these days. They had better start making more compelling entertainment affordable or it will die a slow horrible death.
In a true "free market" everything is free and equally available to all participants at equal cost: most importantly knowledge.
False. This assumption assumes that all goods are of equal value and availability and cost the same to make everywhere. Hurricane Irma proved this to be false where normally supplied goods were simply not available. Free Markets allow for price changes to compensate people for supplying goods in short supply that are harder to get during certain circumstances. While we all hate gouging, price freezes keeps additional supply from entering that market, because the cost to bring those goods in isn't rewarded with higher prices. Which leads invariably to... no supplies at all. (I will give a good example)
profit derived from trade available to merchants and so on is wholly due to the lack of a free market: where both products and information are not available to all participants.
Again, this is patently false. Profit is derived from providing a product or service as a price someone is willing to pay, sufficient to cover the cost of doing business with extra left over. (example following)
Hurricane is bearing down on Florida, government declares "No Price Gouging" (subjective term) and Cases of bottled water sell for the same price as the day before, and pretty soon, all supplies are gone. People buying WAY more water than they need (irrational), and others not able to get any water at any price. The price doesn't matter to those that don't have any water, or the people who have more than they need. Because "No Price Gouging" is the law, nobody is able to take a truck from Atlanta or New Orleans, fill it up with Cases of water and drive to Miami and sell water, because... there is no "profit" in it at the "No Price Gouging" price (whatever that is)
In a free market, prices adjust to the market conditions. As supplies become rare, the price goes up, as supply is returned because there is higher profits, the price drops back to normal. The information doesn't change, what does change is irrational behavior (I'm buying 199 cases because!!!!) becomes more reasoned (I can't afford $40 case x 199 cases) and others who wanted water can now get the water they need. In the No Price Gouging world, there were no limits placed and plenty of people did without bottled water.
Yes, raw economics is void of any compassion. It is also without any passion. It just is. It accounts for pure rationality when that is the case, and pure irrationality when that is the case (see Dutch Tulip case) Eventually equilibrium happens.
The fact is, we don't live is a economically free environment, we already have plenty of interference and controls placed. And it is never enough. My last example is in regard for the case of Net Neutrality, instead of fixing the problem (government interference in free market, via Franchise agreements) we add in more government controls which won't do what proponents think it will do, and cause more issues than it actually solves. The real solution is to build out last mile in such a way that the free market offers people the services they want, at whatever price the market will bear. I want municipal owned infrastructure, but be able to order the services I want from the vendor of my choice, rather than have my only option be Comcast with Net Neutrality.
Science isn't leftwing or rightwing. Science supports a lot of things, but one of the things science does, is force people to prove their points. The process of Politics is a separate process. Science should be left to scientists, not politicians. I'm sick of people selectively remembering "science" when it is politically expedient.
Case in point, all the left wing loons that are blaming two hurricanes on Trump's election and global warming. Where were they the last 10 years or so, when hurricanes were practically none existent, where they citing the lack of hurricanes on Global Cooling?
And I don't see any Coastal Elitists volunteering for living in 3rd world conditions to lower their own carbon footprint. They want their coal fired electricity to power their Teslas, releasing more carbon than if they drove a SUV (exaggeration to make a point) . http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
Science shows what is, not what ought to be. It shows what is possible, not what is capable.
Actually, the cost of doing business it is always cheaper for lawyers than just about anything else. Lawyers keep you out of Legal Danger (or at least are supposed to).
And until the Corporate board and the CxOs and the Shareholders are held accountable, nothing will actually change.
The only way to solve this problem is start charging the bigwigs at the top for criminal negligence of the corporate culture they foster. Followed by Corporate Death Penalty where the corporate charter is revoked. When shareholders are caught empty handed with nothing to show, they will DEMAND corporations uphold their due diligence and actually start protecting their data.
Lastly, I would suggest that the default nature of Credit is keeping it in a frozen state. It should take extraordinary effort to open credit account.
The US is currently more or less self dependent for Oil, having larger reserves than most of the ME countries... combined. We don't control the world like people think, OPEC does.
And it makes sense to cut resources you have to import (in China's and Europe's case) and not give money to people who want to blow you up for being an Infidel.I honestly wish them well.
The US will get there, when it is economically reasonable to do so. But unlike China, and some of the European countries, we do not have a centrally planned economy.
Best definition of "luck" I have seen: "When Preparation Meets Opportunity"
Like you said, opportunity happens all the time, all around us. The problem is, we are unprepared for it, don't recognize it, and can't actually capitalize on it.
Missing opportunities is as easy as going home after 8 hours of work, getting drunk and playing the latest Skyrim DLC for the next six hours. Finding opportunities is hard work, consistent behaviors to improve one's skills, connections, sweating, and practice. I would suggest to you, that there is very little in the actual way of "luck". People don't see the toil, sweat, agony, brokenheart of failures that lead to success, and call everything they miss "luck".
"Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect." Ralph Waldo Emerson
The laws, rules and regulations that protect Equifax from those it is screwing is all done in collusion with big government. Big Corporations have access in the halls of power that an individual who has been wronged doesn't have. Even in a case like this, the ONLY way the affected individuals can have any influence is long after the damage is done, and only if they band together in a class action lawsuit. The laws won't change regardless.
And while all this is happening, the executives are making millions on the misery of others, untouchable by the legal system, because of the state sponsored incorporation laws says that the big wigs aren't responsible for the failures under their leadership. Which is why I support being able to criminally charge the CxOs and the Board of Directors for the negligence and malfeasance, and the Corporate Death Penalty.
Here is a solution, the government revoke the Corporation's Charter, and put them out of business, leaving the shareholders holding nothing.
As an old timer grey beard, I can honestly say I have said "I cannot live without" some tech that was great and is now gone without a replacement. I can also confirm, I lived.
I try not to be so hyperbolic about tech I can or cannot live without. "Yeah, it sucks" is my normal reaction these days.
To issue a complain to remove any item offered by Amazon or any of its resellers, you must first register with Amazon and have your registration verified prior to issuing any takedown request. If you fail to register, your complaint will be ignored. This process is required to protect our partners from malicious / anonymous take down notices.
Every Story has already been told. The only things changing are the characters and circumstances that create the overarching plot narrative. There are a number of people who have quipped about it in the past, and it is largely true (more or less).
It is the narrative of the story arc that matters anymore; the uniqueness of the characters, situations.
That being said, the rehash of the fourth time, of Batman origins is... tiring.
The EU is and isn't what anyone wants it to be (or not to be). It is a vague confederation of states.
So, it all depends on the question, whether or not it makes the EU look good/bad and whether or not you want it to look that way.
Petty dictators need to be exposed for what they are. This is such a case. So, it is or isn't a reflection on the EU, again depending on your support (or not) of the EU. So, you'll have to figure out if the EU is good or bad, and if you like this idea or not, before you can actually say if this is harm or not.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Define "preemptive" attack?
When Kim launches another ICBM over Japan, is that an act of war and can we respond or not?
If one suggests that a missile launch is not a threat or act of war, then nothing is. Especially considering the fact that Kim could be tipping that missile with nuclear bombs, we'd never know until it was too fucking late and Tokyo or Portland is an ash heap.
While I doubt Kim is that stupid, there is no indication that he is smart either.
Announcer: "How Many Joints do you get out of a lid?" ...
Game Show Contestant: "One"
Announcer: "Our judges say ...'that is correct!'!!!"
Well, IMHO the cry of Racism is so over used, that it has lost all meaning, to the point where Charlottesville violence was initially panned by a lot of people (including me). Crying wolf works until it doesn't, and we have actually reached that point.
And you are probably right, that it was sarcastic trolling, but there is a very real chance it wasn't. And that doubt is telling.
Here are my questions I ask myself when buying a movie:
1) Do I Really like the movie?
2) Am I going to want to watch it a lot?
3) Can I spread the "cost" of the movie over the number of times I am gonna watch it enough to not wince when I am buying it?
That's it. And since #2 is dependent upon #1 it is really comes down to how well I like the movie. As the prices go up, the less likely I am going to buy a movie. As it stands now, there are only a couple movies a year at most that I am willing to buy.
In the meantime, I'll wait for it to show up on Cable. I don't even pay for any of the Premium Movie channels, because quite frankly, they don't offer me enough of the movies I want to watch to justify paying extra each month.
IMHO the Entertainment industry doesn't really understand there is a lot of competition for entertainment these days. They had better start making more compelling entertainment affordable or it will die a slow horrible death.
In a true "free market" everything is free and equally available to all participants at equal cost: most importantly knowledge.
False. This assumption assumes that all goods are of equal value and availability and cost the same to make everywhere. Hurricane Irma proved this to be false where normally supplied goods were simply not available. Free Markets allow for price changes to compensate people for supplying goods in short supply that are harder to get during certain circumstances. While we all hate gouging, price freezes keeps additional supply from entering that market, because the cost to bring those goods in isn't rewarded with higher prices. Which leads invariably to ... no supplies at all. (I will give a good example)
profit derived from trade available to merchants and so on is wholly due to the lack of a free market: where both products and information are not available to all participants.
Again, this is patently false. Profit is derived from providing a product or service as a price someone is willing to pay, sufficient to cover the cost of doing business with extra left over. (example following)
Hurricane is bearing down on Florida, government declares "No Price Gouging" (subjective term) and Cases of bottled water sell for the same price as the day before, and pretty soon, all supplies are gone. People buying WAY more water than they need (irrational), and others not able to get any water at any price. The price doesn't matter to those that don't have any water, or the people who have more than they need. Because "No Price Gouging" is the law, nobody is able to take a truck from Atlanta or New Orleans, fill it up with Cases of water and drive to Miami and sell water, because ... there is no "profit" in it at the "No Price Gouging" price (whatever that is)
In a free market, prices adjust to the market conditions. As supplies become rare, the price goes up, as supply is returned because there is higher profits, the price drops back to normal. The information doesn't change, what does change is irrational behavior (I'm buying 199 cases because!!!!) becomes more reasoned (I can't afford $40 case x 199 cases) and others who wanted water can now get the water they need. In the No Price Gouging world, there were no limits placed and plenty of people did without bottled water.
Yes, raw economics is void of any compassion. It is also without any passion. It just is. It accounts for pure rationality when that is the case, and pure irrationality when that is the case (see Dutch Tulip case) Eventually equilibrium happens.
The fact is, we don't live is a economically free environment, we already have plenty of interference and controls placed. And it is never enough. My last example is in regard for the case of Net Neutrality, instead of fixing the problem (government interference in free market, via Franchise agreements) we add in more government controls which won't do what proponents think it will do, and cause more issues than it actually solves. The real solution is to build out last mile in such a way that the free market offers people the services they want, at whatever price the market will bear. I want municipal owned infrastructure, but be able to order the services I want from the vendor of my choice, rather than have my only option be Comcast with Net Neutrality.
What works? Socialism ? BHAHAHAHAHHA
Science isn't leftwing or rightwing. Science supports a lot of things, but one of the things science does, is force people to prove their points. The process of Politics is a separate process. Science should be left to scientists, not politicians. I'm sick of people selectively remembering "science" when it is politically expedient.
Case in point, all the left wing loons that are blaming two hurricanes on Trump's election and global warming. Where were they the last 10 years or so, when hurricanes were practically none existent, where they citing the lack of hurricanes on Global Cooling?
And I don't see any Coastal Elitists volunteering for living in 3rd world conditions to lower their own carbon footprint. They want their coal fired electricity to power their Teslas, releasing more carbon than if they drove a SUV (exaggeration to make a point) . http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
Science shows what is, not what ought to be. It shows what is possible, not what is capable.
Actually, the cost of doing business it is always cheaper for lawyers than just about anything else. Lawyers keep you out of Legal Danger (or at least are supposed to).
And until the Corporate board and the CxOs and the Shareholders are held accountable, nothing will actually change.
The only way to solve this problem is start charging the bigwigs at the top for criminal negligence of the corporate culture they foster. Followed by Corporate Death Penalty where the corporate charter is revoked. When shareholders are caught empty handed with nothing to show, they will DEMAND corporations uphold their due diligence and actually start protecting their data.
Lastly, I would suggest that the default nature of Credit is keeping it in a frozen state. It should take extraordinary effort to open credit account.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Ene...
That is the report I was looking at.
I honestly wish them well.
For clarification sake only ... "them" refers to those that want to cut resource usage (China and Europe), not the people wanting to blow you up. ;) :-D
The US is currently more or less self dependent for Oil, having larger reserves than most of the ME countries ... combined. We don't control the world like people think, OPEC does.
And it makes sense to cut resources you have to import (in China's and Europe's case) and not give money to people who want to blow you up for being an Infidel.I honestly wish them well.
The US will get there, when it is economically reasonable to do so. But unlike China, and some of the European countries, we do not have a centrally planned economy.
Poker has this interesting result, you can play perfectly, and still lose.
However, if you play perfectly, all the time, the times you lose won't matter nearly as much as the times you win.
That, and I really like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They did, its called "Mars". Earth is simply Mars 2.0 Duh!
Best definition of "luck" I have seen: "When Preparation Meets Opportunity"
Like you said, opportunity happens all the time, all around us. The problem is, we are unprepared for it, don't recognize it, and can't actually capitalize on it.
Missing opportunities is as easy as going home after 8 hours of work, getting drunk and playing the latest Skyrim DLC for the next six hours. Finding opportunities is hard work, consistent behaviors to improve one's skills, connections, sweating, and practice. I would suggest to you, that there is very little in the actual way of "luck". People don't see the toil, sweat, agony, brokenheart of failures that lead to success, and call everything they miss "luck".
"Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Lets jump to conclusions. Please! Earthquakes are caused by Global Warming!
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
I would say at least indirectly, yes.
The laws, rules and regulations that protect Equifax from those it is screwing is all done in collusion with big government. Big Corporations have access in the halls of power that an individual who has been wronged doesn't have. Even in a case like this, the ONLY way the affected individuals can have any influence is long after the damage is done, and only if they band together in a class action lawsuit. The laws won't change regardless.
And while all this is happening, the executives are making millions on the misery of others, untouchable by the legal system, because of the state sponsored incorporation laws says that the big wigs aren't responsible for the failures under their leadership. Which is why I support being able to criminally charge the CxOs and the Board of Directors for the negligence and malfeasance, and the Corporate Death Penalty.
Here is a solution, the government revoke the Corporation's Charter, and put them out of business, leaving the shareholders holding nothing.
.. that we know of.
So, in your world, Amazon doesn't have a right to know that the person making the request has any authority or authorization to make the request?
It isn't violating any laws, it is asking for proof that the complaint isn't some random dude making up stuff to get some shits and giggles.
As an old timer grey beard, I can honestly say I have said "I cannot live without" some tech that was great and is now gone without a replacement. I can also confirm, I lived.
I try not to be so hyperbolic about tech I can or cannot live without. "Yeah, it sucks" is my normal reaction these days.
It should be simple.
----
To issue a complain to remove any item offered by Amazon or any of its resellers, you must first register with Amazon and have your registration verified prior to issuing any takedown request. If you fail to register, your complaint will be ignored. This process is required to protect our partners from malicious / anonymous take down notices.
Every Story has already been told. The only things changing are the characters and circumstances that create the overarching plot narrative. There are a number of people who have quipped about it in the past, and it is largely true (more or less).
It is the narrative of the story arc that matters anymore; the uniqueness of the characters, situations.
That being said, the rehash of the fourth time, of Batman origins is ... tiring.
Or "Age Identify" as another age all together.
Americans make fun of Europeans for being lazy. It works both ways. Cultural differences are such that it looks silly to people on the other side. ;)
The EU is and isn't what anyone wants it to be (or not to be). It is a vague confederation of states.
So, it all depends on the question, whether or not it makes the EU look good/bad and whether or not you want it to look that way.
Petty dictators need to be exposed for what they are. This is such a case. So, it is or isn't a reflection on the EU, again depending on your support (or not) of the EU. So, you'll have to figure out if the EU is good or bad, and if you like this idea or not, before you can actually say if this is harm or not. ;-)
See how that works?