Yes. (before I got into tech I was going for a Doctorate in History - not that it really matters, but I have a strong background in this subject)
First of all the will need not be written by the person himself. Often times put into writing at the local church. Second the level of literacy was not 0. Many were illiterate by our standards but not so illiterate that they could not make a list. Literacy was way over 50% by the 16th C
iron kettle - aaron
oak bed - bill
down comforter - charlie
horse - david
pig - earnie
Literacy was way over 50% in Western Europe and North America by the end of the 18th C. (This number is for males.)
Take a look at the letters we have from the Revolutionary War, the pamphlet wars, the broadside.Take a look at the letters written by average soldiers in the Civil War. They weren't the mass of illiterate peasants you imagine them to be. Most every male, white child in the US learned his letters and 'rithmetic.
There are a lot Pepe's working in IT.
And a lot of college dropouts (doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated) who run businesses.
Keep believing your opponents are stupid rednecks. (No. That's not racist is it? Of course if you said stupid do-rag wearing ghetto kid that wouldn't be racist either.... Or would it. Nice f**king double standards.)
Hiring free market, limited government judges.
Relaxing burdensome regulations - coal mine opening (and no the coal is not used for heating or electricity but for the production of steel)
Pushing for (instead of against) the Keystone Pipeline
Pushing for (instead of against) fracking
Pushing for (instead of against) off-shore drilling
Getting out of the TPP
Getting out of the Paris Treaty
You may agree, or disagree with what's being done. I certainly have my problems with Trump and the Republicans. But you need to stop lying to yourself and others that nothing is being done and that goals are not being accomplished.
And, as you mentioned, increased funding and activity on illegal immigration.
Yeah. Take a look at the age BEFORE capitalism; then look at the beginning of industrialism (Charles Dickens era) then look at Golden Gilded age.
The lives of the average person sucked in all. BUT they were getting wealthier.
How do we know? Because poor people started leaving wills. Whereas before they had nothing now they mattresses and oak furniture and this and tht.
Wealth for the common man increased as a result of capitalism. Was their life still brutal by our standareds? F**k yes. Would I like to trade places with them? F**k no. But to say that capitalism did not increase the material well being of the society (and even those at the bottom) flies in the face of the evidence.
Oh, by the way, come the 1950s even Marxist historians were not disputing this - what Hobsbawn and others were saying was that there was more to life than material goods and that workers lost... x, y, z That's not relevant to this discussion. Material wealth among the poor increased,
The standard at most mid-tier boutiques are 2.25 (keystone) - 3 times cost.
By mid-tier I mean men's t-shirts in the $50+ range, jeans in the $120-$250 range and button-downs in the $129-$300 range.
100% + markup might sound like a lot, but by the time you factor in the cost of money, rent, employees, shrinkage, more you have an anemic profit margin.
Yes. True. But the advantage of BTC is that it is portable. You can have a very secure brainwallet. And it's much easier to travel with BTC then it would be trying to bring a suitcase of valuables with you. Can thieves, border guards beat or torture you and get your BTC? Of course. But which would you rather have BTC or try to leave the country with valuables (diamonds, gold) in your pockets and suitcase?
Even if that wasn't the only concern? Example: what about transmitting your savings from place X to place Y (China to the US for example)
Or, so fearing the value of the existing currency (Venezuela anyone) that even if BTC took a 20% hit you would still rather have BTC then the paper your government is peddling.
Are there problems? Of course. BTC is not a cure all. It is simply a digital way of storing and transmitting a value.
Has little to do with the rich. Unless you consider the rich to be:
Chinese who have spare cash and don't want to put it into a bank account (which can be seized) or buy an apartment in a ghost town.
Indians who lost a lot of their saved (off-the-books) cash. (You may like the idea of reducing corruption and the black-market economy... but not everyone agrees with you. And black market economy includes the poor okra farmer selling his own veggies.)
Or perhaps you missed the socialist paradise of Venezuela? What if you feared that?
Or maybe you lived in Egypt or Cyprus and you had problems accessing your own "safe","secure", "bank-held" currency.
Or maybe you live in places where these events no longer look far-fetched to you and you want to squirrel a little away.
It's not the big movers who are raising the price of BTC. It's the small guys.
I read her work for the same reason I read Marx and Hegel (the dialectic - right, there's a good fuc*ing idea) and other philosophers.
Your points of "logic and self-interest" and objective are not accurate. Case in point - she thought her philosophy would be more appropriately called Existentialism but that name had already been taken.
Math is math. I don't know this particular project but what the "blockchain" would allow you to do is to create a history for those people who need it.
The key point of worry is control of the passphrase. Say I make an unbreakable passphrase = "Bernie and Donald sitting in a tree k i s s i n g. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Hillary in a baby carriage."
What happens if I forget it?
What happens if I give it to somebody else (stupidity, blackmail, whatever)
What happens when I die or comatose?
The alternative is that microsoft / accenture / the govt has control over the passphrase -- is that anything different than what we have now in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere?
Now, let's define write. A congressman (or Senator) submits a bill with his name on it. He may or may not have written every word. In today's world that is highly unlikely. His staff works on it, the President (as you mentioned), lobbyists, citizens, interest groups, think tanks can suggest wording. The Congressman can ignore it, take all or part of what was presented to him and include it in a bill.
He the sponsors this bill (he may or may not get co-sponsors of the bill).
It then gets reviewed and passed by the appropriate sub-committee.
It then gets passed by one chamber, and then the other.
It then goes to the President for approval.
As you know there is tons of gamemanship - the most evil (from my part) is combining bills together. Today there was an example of sanctioning Russia and Iran. What if you approved of one and disapproved of the other. You, as a congressmen, will then have to weigh which of the two is more important to you. Politicians do that to trap each other - "see Person X voted for this evil legislation" therefore he is evil and your only recourse is to vote for me.
Back to Trump and Congress - these are powerful people who are playing high-stakes games. Trump does not have the establishment republicans behind him, the freedom caucus is hated by the eRepublicans and they, in turn, have a very wary rapport with Trump. There isn't a cohesion among the Republicans as there was between Obama and the establishment Democrats.
You could very well see this happening if Jill Stein was elected President and there was an establishment Democrat Congress wanting to keep their perks.
The same kind of idiot as Obama promising to close Gitmo (which could be done be Executive Order).
The same kind of idiot as Obama promising to have the most transparent government possible.
The same kind of idiot as all politicians.
We all take these as statement of intent as this is not a dictatorship, the president cannot force through this legislation.
Ultimately bills are introduced and then passed by Congress.
If you think lobbyists are bad I hope you're for having a less powerful Congress and small, limited government. The more power you give to government the more freedom you give up.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. (before I got into tech I was going for a Doctorate in History - not that it really matters, but I have a strong background in this subject)
First of all the will need not be written by the person himself. Often times put into writing at the local church. Second the level of literacy was not 0. Many were illiterate by our standards but not so illiterate that they could not make a list. Literacy was way over 50% by the 16th C
iron kettle - aaron
oak bed - bill
down comforter - charlie
horse - david
pig - earnie
Literacy was way over 50% in Western Europe and North America by the end of the 18th C. (This number is for males.) Take a look at the letters we have from the Revolutionary War, the pamphlet wars, the broadside.Take a look at the letters written by average soldiers in the Civil War. They weren't the mass of illiterate peasants you imagine them to be. Most every male, white child in the US learned his letters and 'rithmetic.
That wasn't the point. The OP said nothing was being done and that Trump wasn't keeping his promises.
That was a list of things being done and promises kept.
Do you and I have disagreements with Trump? Yes. Probably. (I can't speak for you) But don't kid yourself. Things are getting done.
Keep on keeping on.
... Or would it. Nice f**king double standards.)
There are a lot Pepe's working in IT.
And a lot of college dropouts (doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated) who run businesses.
Keep believing your opponents are stupid rednecks. (No. That's not racist is it? Of course if you said stupid do-rag wearing ghetto kid that wouldn't be racist either.
Hiring free market, limited government judges.
Relaxing burdensome regulations - coal mine opening (and no the coal is not used for heating or electricity but for the production of steel)
Pushing for (instead of against) the Keystone Pipeline
Pushing for (instead of against) fracking
Pushing for (instead of against) off-shore drilling
Getting out of the TPP
Getting out of the Paris Treaty
You may agree, or disagree with what's being done. I certainly have my problems with Trump and the Republicans. But you need to stop lying to yourself and others that nothing is being done and that goals are not being accomplished. And, as you mentioned, increased funding and activity on illegal immigration.
Sorry. Profit is not the result of exploitation of labor.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
Yeah. Take a look at the age BEFORE capitalism; then look at the beginning of industrialism (Charles Dickens era) then look at Golden Gilded age.
... x, y, z That's not relevant to this discussion. Material wealth among the poor increased,
The lives of the average person sucked in all. BUT they were getting wealthier.
How do we know? Because poor people started leaving wills. Whereas before they had nothing now they mattresses and oak furniture and this and tht.
Wealth for the common man increased as a result of capitalism. Was their life still brutal by our standareds? F**k yes. Would I like to trade places with them? F**k no. But to say that capitalism did not increase the material well being of the society (and even those at the bottom) flies in the face of the evidence.
Oh, by the way, come the 1950s even Marxist historians were not disputing this - what Hobsbawn and others were saying was that there was more to life than material goods and that workers lost
The standard at most mid-tier boutiques are 2.25 (keystone) - 3 times cost.
By mid-tier I mean men's t-shirts in the $50+ range, jeans in the $120-$250 range and button-downs in the $129-$300 range.
100% + markup might sound like a lot, but by the time you factor in the cost of money, rent, employees, shrinkage, more you have an anemic profit margin.
Guess you don't see how others can find that to be a racist, genocidal solution to the problem.
I happen to be pro-choice, but pro-life people would read that as you arguing to solve the migration problem with genocide.
I was also talking about Venezuelan / USSR socialism.
Lower wages are not a function of capitalism.
What makes this a factor of capitalism?
Socialists wouldn't do the same? Oh, Rights. Forgot. Governments always act in the best interest of the governed. Got that. My Bad.
Yes. True. But the advantage of BTC is that it is portable. You can have a very secure brainwallet. And it's much easier to travel with BTC then it would be trying to bring a suitcase of valuables with you. Can thieves, border guards beat or torture you and get your BTC? Of course. But which would you rather have BTC or try to leave the country with valuables (diamonds, gold) in your pockets and suitcase?
Even if that wasn't the only concern? Example: what about transmitting your savings from place X to place Y (China to the US for example)
Or, so fearing the value of the existing currency (Venezuela anyone) that even if BTC took a 20% hit you would still rather have BTC then the paper your government is peddling.
Are there problems? Of course. BTC is not a cure all. It is simply a digital way of storing and transmitting a value.
Has little to do with the rich. Unless you consider the rich to be :
... but not everyone agrees with you. And black market economy includes the poor okra farmer selling his own veggies.)
Chinese who have spare cash and don't want to put it into a bank account (which can be seized) or buy an apartment in a ghost town.
Indians who lost a lot of their saved (off-the-books) cash. (You may like the idea of reducing corruption and the black-market economy
Or perhaps you missed the socialist paradise of Venezuela? What if you feared that?
Or maybe you lived in Egypt or Cyprus and you had problems accessing your own "safe","secure", "bank-held" currency.
Or maybe you live in places where these events no longer look far-fetched to you and you want to squirrel a little away.
It's not the big movers who are raising the price of BTC. It's the small guys.
Not a randroid.
I read her work for the same reason I read Marx and Hegel (the dialectic - right, there's a good fuc*ing idea) and other philosophers.
Your points of "logic and self-interest" and objective are not accurate. Case in point - she thought her philosophy would be more appropriately called Existentialism but that name had already been taken.
"don't understand the difference between logic and self-interest"
" think true objectivity is even possible.."
You, apparently, have never read Ayn Rand.
Common. Din't you learn no math. It's eazy.
/sarc (in case it wasn't obviousl)
Sooner or later 0.01 gets rounded down to 0 and then you get a 20% reduction on 0.00 and then it goes negative.
Sheesh. Go back to school.
Because if you store hashed information on the blockchain you need to be able to retrieve it. Then the question becomes "who has retrieval access?"
If you have access to this information then you need a pass phrase. But what if you forget your pass phrase or die or are in a coma?
Wish I had mod points.
+1 for: "Places that are actually discussion groups should strive to embrace the "First Amendment " philosophy too"
of course.
Math is math. I don't know this particular project but what the "blockchain" would allow you to do is to create a history for those people who need it.
The key point of worry is control of the passphrase. Say I make an unbreakable passphrase = "Bernie and Donald sitting in a tree k i s s i n g. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Hillary in a baby carriage."
What happens if I forget it?
What happens if I give it to somebody else (stupidity, blackmail, whatever)
What happens when I die or comatose?
The alternative is that microsoft / accenture / the govt has control over the passphrase -- is that anything different than what we have now in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere?
I can argue facts.
What is wrong with inheriting wealth?
What is wrong with wealth?
It's not a zero-sum game so my wealth does not mean yo have less.
You never bothered answering the question of what is a free market and the transitions.
If I have a farm and sell you an apple and there is no restriction on the apple or the price then that transaction is part of the free market.
You can get yourself off the grid (buy buildings, trade with coops, etc.. as I mentioned) or you can try to take over by force.
Good luck with you take the later route.
No. Congress writes the Legislation.
Now, let's define write. A congressman (or Senator) submits a bill with his name on it. He may or may not have written every word. In today's world that is highly unlikely. His staff works on it, the President (as you mentioned), lobbyists, citizens, interest groups, think tanks can suggest wording. The Congressman can ignore it, take all or part of what was presented to him and include it in a bill.
He the sponsors this bill (he may or may not get co-sponsors of the bill).
It then gets reviewed and passed by the appropriate sub-committee.
It then gets passed by one chamber, and then the other.
It then goes to the President for approval.
As you know there is tons of gamemanship - the most evil (from my part) is combining bills together. Today there was an example of sanctioning Russia and Iran. What if you approved of one and disapproved of the other. You, as a congressmen, will then have to weigh which of the two is more important to you. Politicians do that to trap each other - "see Person X voted for this evil legislation" therefore he is evil and your only recourse is to vote for me.
Back to Trump and Congress - these are powerful people who are playing high-stakes games. Trump does not have the establishment republicans behind him, the freedom caucus is hated by the eRepublicans and they, in turn, have a very wary rapport with Trump. There isn't a cohesion among the Republicans as there was between Obama and the establishment Democrats.
You could very well see this happening if Jill Stein was elected President and there was an establishment Democrat Congress wanting to keep their perks.
The same kind of idiot as Obama promising to close Gitmo (which could be done be Executive Order).
The same kind of idiot as Obama promising to have the most transparent government possible.
The same kind of idiot as all politicians.
We all take these as statement of intent as this is not a dictatorship, the president cannot force through this legislation.
And you know all of this.
Yes. No. Sometimes.
Ultimately bills are introduced and then passed by Congress.
If you think lobbyists are bad I hope you're for having a less powerful Congress and small, limited government. The more power you give to government the more freedom you give up.
yes. There is an "or" there. And you and I can write a bill and get a congressman to introduce the bill and then get it passed into law.
Come on. The responsibility lies with Congress.
and do you realize that it's Congress which writes the legislation. My point stands.
You do realize that legislation must be passed by Congress, that is the House and the Senate before it is signed into law.
And you do realize that the Republican party is split in factions much the same as the Democrats. So, blaming Trump for Congress doesn't make sense.
Or would you rather that everybody does what the President wants and get rid of Congress altogether?