Goodness gracious, I wish I could get me some inflation! I just bought a house and got a 5% rate on the mortgage. That's a great rate, and I hope that we enter into a period of inflation during which my wages will rise with the rate of inflation, and that inflation will be greater than 5% per year. It'll be the bank paying ME for my house!
Inflation is good in some ways and bad in some ways.
They are "worth" the political might of the United States. By accepting the bills, you are betting on the future political power of the USA. Similarly, if you accept gold coins, you are betting on the future trade value of gold.
Any currency -- any at all -- is nothing more than a communal expectation of continued value. It's fine for people to think that (say) gold will retain its value better than (say) the USA, but it's hogwash to claim that one value is "real" and the other is not.
Oh, okay, I see I didn't understand exactly what you were saying. Yes, I suppose it takes some trust, but if you are like Reagan you can "trust but verify" by ad-blocking things that aren't pics and text. Then you have established an enforceable deal with them -- if they live up to their promise, then their ads will show in your browser.
An ad-free internet would certainly be very different, but the difference sounds, as a whole, like an improvement to me. And ad-free world would also be different but nice. Of course I have only my imagination to rely on to compare.
What guarantee could they possibly make that would be both convincing and immutable?
Really? You can't think of any ways?
Having thought about it for about three seconds, I suggest that the ads be constrained to only text or graphics (no flash, no java, no scripts). As far as I know, text and pictures can't spread malware.
For instance, I think there was this one back in 2001 that I gladly clicked. And, uh, gosh there might have been one more in there somewhere.
But the other several million that have only annoyed me have been totally useless.
Perhaps it would be great if I could see that one-in-ten-million ad, and none of the others, but I can't figure out how to do that, so I have to just block all of them.
(Speculatrix, this is not a criticism of you or your point. I am not trying to counter anything you said or start an argument. It seems to be impossible to reply to a comment on Slashdot without the parent thinking the reply is an attack.)
Me too! Whenever I see a web ad my initial reaction is no longer annoyance, but rather surprise. "What is this?" I think to myself. "Lo, this foreign thing is so incongruous! Here I am on a web page about one topic, and there is this strange part of the page about a totally unrelated topic!" Then half a second later my brain realizes what the thing is, and then the annoyance sets in.
Also, pages with ads have an odd "shape". I'm not used to seeing big tall column-shape images next to whatever I'm reading, but that's the shape of most pages when not using AdBlock. Or, when I load a forum page, I can normally see the first and maybe second posts when using AdBlock, but if not then there is an ad there and I have to scroll to see the posts. It's strange that way.
I am so incredibly happy that ad filtering is possible with the internet. I literally never watch TV or listen to the radio now, because of ads. I still watch TV shows on Netflix (live or on disc) and I still enjoy radio programs as podcasts -- but I just can't or won't agree to the previous broadcast model for programming.
Feel free to try and come up with something new that meets the needs of the world better.
You mean, like, pictures? The original web browsers had text and hyperlinks. Everything else you see is an innovation.
You might disagree but I think my web experience is enhanced by pictures, movies, forms, scripts, ad blockers, the direct search field, tabs, and pretty much every other feature. And this Slashdot Application I use in my browser is a little bit more capable than the similar desktop applications I was using 15 years ago. The web is a fine place to develop applications.
Please don't be angry. It's fine if those things aren't important to you, but they are to many of us -- I venture to say perhaps most of us.
Uhg. Remember flashing text? Thank god that went away. I almost never see it now.
I once had to stare down my boss and refuse to put flashing text on our front page. He insisted, and I told him that because my name was on the bottom of the page as webmaster, I could not fulfill the request. He would have to find a new web guy to do it. Luckily for me he settled for bold red text.
Okay, I really really don't want to start an argument, so I'm not going to respond further in this thread than this. It seems impossible to make a point or counterpoint on Slashdot without someone mischaracterizing what was said.
A w-2 is a good example of a number that the government already has; but the government does not have a lot of other numbers that are required for many tax returns. Thus, to fill in the returns for many people they would need to increase the amount of information they gather. That might be okay, or it might be a bit too much for them to know.
That's all I'm saying. The convenience might or might not be worth the extra surveillance.
That would be very convenient, and I would welcome the convenience. On the other hand, it would solidify the government's knowledge over every part of my financial life, and although I understand that they already know a lot of my numbers, that makes me a little uncomfortable. I wish there were a third way to have both the convenience and the privacy, but I can't think of one. It's difficult to decide which system I prefer, but yours sure has some benefits, no question about that.
So your claim is that dishonest people have more children than honest people? Because that's what it means to "win the game of natural selection." Can you back up your claim with any evidence?
Indeed, you are correct. My advice was for people who don't want to be hassled by the police -- which is to say, absolutely everybody, innocent and guilty alike. Just because you are guilty is no reason to help the police ruin your weekend. For the most part I agree with what you said, but I guess I think my tale is a good part of the mix for admonitions to know your rights. (And in my case, I think my story doesn't carry the same weight if the listener doesn't know why it was so important to avoid a search.) To be sure, innocent people also need to know their rights, and assert them.
It is a standard clause in the USA as well. The GP doens't know what he's talking about.
At my last job, I was in exactly that situation. I was trained with the understanding that my training costs would be pro-rated for the next four quarters of a year.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, around here, it's best to be explicit. Slashdot suffers from a high rate of WHOOSH. (And I get your joke -- I think.)
Don't be ridiculous! That ice cream thing would never work.
(joke)
It's true, your post isn't a troll, it's more like flamebait. But, those things overlap.
Goodness gracious, I wish I could get me some inflation! I just bought a house and got a 5% rate on the mortgage. That's a great rate, and I hope that we enter into a period of inflation during which my wages will rise with the rate of inflation, and that inflation will be greater than 5% per year. It'll be the bank paying ME for my house!
Inflation is good in some ways and bad in some ways.
They are "worth" the political might of the United States. By accepting the bills, you are betting on the future political power of the USA. Similarly, if you accept gold coins, you are betting on the future trade value of gold.
Any currency -- any at all -- is nothing more than a communal expectation of continued value. It's fine for people to think that (say) gold will retain its value better than (say) the USA, but it's hogwash to claim that one value is "real" and the other is not.
You'll get better lap dances if you offer the stripper that stack of hundred-dollar bills.
Dude, plastic money? Seriously? Get real! If you want non-flimsy and non-sweaty, then pure titanium money is the only realistic solution.
It's hard to put in a wallet, though.
I don't think "counterfeit" and "thief" mean what you think they mean.
Oh, okay, I see I didn't understand exactly what you were saying. Yes, I suppose it takes some trust, but if you are like Reagan you can "trust but verify" by ad-blocking things that aren't pics and text. Then you have established an enforceable deal with them -- if they live up to their promise, then their ads will show in your browser.
An ad-free internet would certainly be very different, but the difference sounds, as a whole, like an improvement to me. And ad-free world would also be different but nice. Of course I have only my imagination to rely on to compare.
Actually, it's nothing like that at all. Anybody got a car analogy?
What guarantee could they possibly make that would be both convincing and immutable?
Really? You can't think of any ways?
Having thought about it for about three seconds, I suggest that the ads be constrained to only text or graphics (no flash, no java, no scripts). As far as I know, text and pictures can't spread malware.
Yes, because simply not visiting the site would be silly.
Agreed.
We accept your apology.
On what platform do you learn about computers?
I also occassionally find ads useful.
For instance, I think there was this one back in 2001 that I gladly clicked. And, uh, gosh there might have been one more in there somewhere.
But the other several million that have only annoyed me have been totally useless.
Perhaps it would be great if I could see that one-in-ten-million ad, and none of the others, but I can't figure out how to do that, so I have to just block all of them.
(Speculatrix, this is not a criticism of you or your point. I am not trying to counter anything you said or start an argument. It seems to be impossible to reply to a comment on Slashdot without the parent thinking the reply is an attack.)
Me too! Whenever I see a web ad my initial reaction is no longer annoyance, but rather surprise. "What is this?" I think to myself. "Lo, this foreign thing is so incongruous! Here I am on a web page about one topic, and there is this strange part of the page about a totally unrelated topic!" Then half a second later my brain realizes what the thing is, and then the annoyance sets in.
Also, pages with ads have an odd "shape". I'm not used to seeing big tall column-shape images next to whatever I'm reading, but that's the shape of most pages when not using AdBlock. Or, when I load a forum page, I can normally see the first and maybe second posts when using AdBlock, but if not then there is an ad there and I have to scroll to see the posts. It's strange that way.
I am so incredibly happy that ad filtering is possible with the internet. I literally never watch TV or listen to the radio now, because of ads. I still watch TV shows on Netflix (live or on disc) and I still enjoy radio programs as podcasts -- but I just can't or won't agree to the previous broadcast model for programming.
Feel free to try and come up with something new that meets the needs of the world better.
You mean, like, pictures? The original web browsers had text and hyperlinks. Everything else you see is an innovation.
You might disagree but I think my web experience is enhanced by pictures, movies, forms, scripts, ad blockers, the direct search field, tabs, and pretty much every other feature. And this Slashdot Application I use in my browser is a little bit more capable than the similar desktop applications I was using 15 years ago. The web is a fine place to develop applications.
Please don't be angry. It's fine if those things aren't important to you, but they are to many of us -- I venture to say perhaps most of us.
Uhg. Remember flashing text? Thank god that went away. I almost never see it now.
I once had to stare down my boss and refuse to put flashing text on our front page. He insisted, and I told him that because my name was on the bottom of the page as webmaster, I could not fulfill the request. He would have to find a new web guy to do it. Luckily for me he settled for bold red text.
Okay, I really really don't want to start an argument, so I'm not going to respond further in this thread than this. It seems impossible to make a point or counterpoint on Slashdot without someone mischaracterizing what was said.
A w-2 is a good example of a number that the government already has; but the government does not have a lot of other numbers that are required for many tax returns. Thus, to fill in the returns for many people they would need to increase the amount of information they gather. That might be okay, or it might be a bit too much for them to know.
That's all I'm saying. The convenience might or might not be worth the extra surveillance.
The last word is yours.
That would be very convenient, and I would welcome the convenience. On the other hand, it would solidify the government's knowledge over every part of my financial life, and although I understand that they already know a lot of my numbers, that makes me a little uncomfortable. I wish there were a third way to have both the convenience and the privacy, but I can't think of one. It's difficult to decide which system I prefer, but yours sure has some benefits, no question about that.
So your claim is that dishonest people have more children than honest people? Because that's what it means to "win the game of natural selection." Can you back up your claim with any evidence?
Indeed, you are correct. My advice was for people who don't want to be hassled by the police -- which is to say, absolutely everybody, innocent and guilty alike. Just because you are guilty is no reason to help the police ruin your weekend. For the most part I agree with what you said, but I guess I think my tale is a good part of the mix for admonitions to know your rights. (And in my case, I think my story doesn't carry the same weight if the listener doesn't know why it was so important to avoid a search.) To be sure, innocent people also need to know their rights, and assert them.
Good luck.
Good point. I concede it. I'd still definitely suggest having a lawyer there while you stare at the floor.
It is a standard clause in the USA as well. The GP doens't know what he's talking about.
At my last job, I was in exactly that situation. I was trained with the understanding that my training costs would be pro-rated for the next four quarters of a year.