the sociologist James Henslin reported that gamblers will often throw dice harder when they want a high number," Hutson writes in his book, "as if the amount of force translates into the quantity of dots showing on a die." And that's logically equivalent to throwing darts at a picture of your nemesis, or sticking pins in a doll.
The reason I don't gamble for money especially in casinos is that the casinos are there to take my money and unless I am very good at working out the odds I will loose my money.
It doesn't seem logical for me to do this.
So using people who, by my reasoning, don't think logically as an example of how we all don't think logically doesn't really seem, well, logical.
The area I would go for is lighting, upgrade to LED lights they are more expensive but they last for ages and have a very small power bill. I have heard of lighting a whole house with 250 Watts, which is a ridiculously small amount of power, my laptop uses more power than that.
Aside from that if you don't already have a media server at home then get a Sheeva plugin computer, or 2, and a hefty hard drive to act as you media server and anything else you can think of. It only costs a hundred bucks, make sure you read about the power supply issues. I eventually used an external power supply for mine. Again the main reason for this is that size of the power draw, I doubt my Sheeva uses more than 10 Watts at any time other than booting it serves files, does a bit of home web hosting for me and I use Mediatomb to stream my videos to the PS3 ( also works with XBox boxes I am led to believe).
My only issue is that I cannot get files from my server to my iPad, which still burns me up about Apple and the iPad (GRRRRRRRRR!).
http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1seaofpis.png
gosh this looks like a lot of Raspberry Pi's in shrink wrap, I wonder if maybe you got modded out for some reason other than you make sane reasonable points with evidence in a calm and reasonable manner?
you are right about point 1 I should have said "to the state of functionality that is present today" instead of "right".
Yes keyboards are a great deal more expressive than mice, but at the same point they also take a great deal longer to learn. My daughter could use a mouse from to click on stuff age 4 (only using one of the buttons cause the other one didn't do much to her eyes) I am not saying that she could do everything with the mouse but her grasp of where the mouse was and how it moved compared to her hand was one that was learned very quickly. So now she is 7 and has just really started using the keyboard and I guess she will not be completely comfortable with it for another year or so and with complete mastery some way off in the distant future.
The main point is, do we want to tied to a desk, or workstation or office or room or do we want more mobile computer and possibly even one that will disappear altogether. If we want all that then I am not sure how often we will be using a keyboard, but I've been wrong before I did buy shares in a bank.
I'd also better stop before I start sounding like a futurist.
A bit like the first time I was present when somebody using hands free headset for their mobile phone, I answered 3 of his questions before I realised he was't talking to me. I am pretty sure he thought I was deranged as he left fairly quickly.
True, but a few points.
1. how long did it take to get the Desktop right? If you think about how long we didn't even have mice to interact with the computer and you don't have to move hardly at all if you don't use one of those.
2.We need to start some place with this and 3D displays and how to interact with them have been around for a while but they will only be improved on when try to figure out how we work with them. This may not be as quick or intuitive as a mouse, but if people don't do work like this then we will be stuck with mice, track-pads and touch screens and the like. for ever.
3.If it could be linked to glasses/contact lenses instead of a screen then I think it would make a lot more sense.
If only I still had moderator points I would mod this up.
Speaking from the point of view of having a spouse with a chronic degenerative medical condition, I feel the situations are analogous. We would love to be able to afford the medication that may help her but they have to be able to make their "reasonable" returns on their investments.
I could really start a huge rant here but I will keep my powder dry as it is a bit off topic.
I find it odd that Doctors, Nurses and Mental Health workers are supposed to be in the healing profession because it is a "calling" whereas drug companies are all cold hard profit and no-one seems to find it an outrageous double standard.
Sorry I've been away,
have a read at this part of the thread, I think that it supports my argument of hyperbole and FUD quite nicely. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2732783&cid=39400829
or do you want some other data, something of the gaps perhaps?
No my argument is that if even with the increase in tax on these investments that the returns that they are getting still make it worthwhile, therefore they will still invest.
The point I also made, I think, was that the article was hyperbole, that it was purposefully alarmist to try to influence the Indian government to try to stop the change in law. I still don't see anything that you say that will dissuade me of that belief.
The point that money should be given to the poor is more in general terms, with your example of the investor, I assume that the government would not just hand out cash in bags with no record as to where it went or what is being done with it and that there would be some accounting, I assume this because no sane person would fly in Billions of dollars to a place and not know where it went. I thought you might do me the same courtesy and assume that I might have a better plan then just handing out money willy nilly, but I guess I was wrong.
I may believe in tax in the rich but I also believe that people should work for money if they can do so. But I also think that the mark of a society is not how prosperous it is but how it cares for it's poor, dispossessed and it's sick
I think that may be enough for now.
Oh and Robert J Barro has opinions on many things that I find quite odious, but that is the problem with economics it's so damned fickle to the fates of fashion. What is wrong with a good bit of Keynesian economics
Rather than give the money away to investors who will try to make money for themselves, I would propose several a large infrastructure projects. This would improve the lot of everyone, not just the investor. Roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, dams, reservoirs, schools, universities heck even nuclear power stations. These are the things that need to be created in many cases. These types of projects are arguably on of the most influential mechanisms that pulled the US out of the great depression by it's bootstraps and ushered in one of the greatest eras of development and technological advances that the world has ever seen all built on the backbone of infrastructure that is now crumbling and decrepit through neglect.
And that doesn't refute my argument one iota. You are just trying to sum up my argument in puerile and facile way to belittle the ramifications of it.
I agree Bush tax cuts have little to do with the situation in India but I hold them as an example of how not to tune your tax system. Remember that taxation or the Rich under Bush fell to it's lowest since before the great depression, increasingly the tax burden was shifted from those most able to pay to those least able to pay and the results have been pretty much the same.
I notice that you say that you are non-rich, but it gave the very rich even more. What did you do with yours? invest it in a start up? or spend it on stuff you needed?
Read this comment, it's not mine but should be modded up http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2732783&cid=39400829
As I have said it is hyperbole, it is not real, it is a fiction to say that the investment will be taxed at 30% and you are falling for it.
Why do you assume that I haven't paid attention? Do you really think that the continuation of the Bush tax break in the USA to the already rich did anything but make them richer? If you do then you will probably never reach the end of this next few lines, cause you will be a denier.
Wealth tends to pool at the top, it doesn't tend to trickle down. It doesn't tend to distribute. Wealth attracts more wealth. If you want a fast way to get money into an economy you give it to poor people who have a hundred different things that they HAVE to spend it on. That money gets to work straight away by buying something, usually physical item or service, a bill or some food or a TV or some electricity or some rent. This contributes to the wider society straight away.
When the rich people get more money they save it or invest it, and by invest I mean that they buy things that will make THEM richer, they don't invest in the community they invest in themselves.
The odd philanthropist will buck the trend and invest in some good projects and will be held up as a poster child to show that the system works and that this is how the system is supposed to work and if only those damn lefties with their taxes would shut up everything would be fine.
What is the premiss of this whole argument? That I am supposed to give a rats ass that some multi-millionaire cannot build upon their wealth in India because they have to pay tax?
Angels can make 20 to 30 times there investment back from the initial loan (I admit that the average number is smaller than that but Angels don't play for average) even if the number is closer to the 2-3 times their investment, think of those numbers for a while and see if you think there should be some sort of Taxation involved.
In the poor places that sort of return on investment is usually only available to Loan Sharks and drug dealers.
So at the end if you could be bothered to read all of this and I haven't been modded out of existence they will still invest, because if they don't their pile of cash can only get smaller, even if they have to pay some tax, a little tax, they will still invest. They will still invest in India and China and USA and the UK and the Ukraine and any place that they can make money.
As I have said before it is what they do, it will not change!
I don't think I actually said anything in my post that does not fit with what you have written above, aside from that I am not particularly sanguine, i just understand that business will squeal and holler like a stuck pig when it sees the bottom line being affected. I mainly turn down the volume of the hyperbole in my head from 11 to something a bit more reasonable.
You are right, tax more get less of something, I agree. But you also agree have to agree that investment will not stop. It may be at a reduced level but it will continue.
But I notice that you you also said "drive it (investment) underground", what you failed to mention is that business will evolve and investment opportunities will change.
I think what we are seeing a small group of extremely wealthy individuals tantrum because the rules got changed.
Are we going to see the death of investment in India? No
Are we going to see some changes in how investments are made and who invests there? Maybe.
Will the Indian government raise more taxes from the increasing disproportionately wealthy upper class? Probably not.
in the end there will be loop holes and there will be exemptions and things will go on!
They always do!
oooooooooooo! why did I not see that one coming! (SLAPS HEAD).
My point is that when new taxes are announced business leaders ALWAYS claim that it is the end of the world as we know it. I have never seen any other reaction. DOOM followed by GLOOM followed by the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!
Sometimes they get their way, sometimes they don't, but I have never seen the collapse of all things.
Things change, laws change, taxes change all the time. Business and in particular Angel investors will still invest because that is how they make money. They won't suddenly stop investing in India because of the imposition of a tax on investment, but they sure as hell will say that they will in order to try to influence the government to change it's policy. IF this change takes place and Angel investor stop throwing money around then come back and I we can talk then. I think that if investors see an new opportunities growing in India they will be off like a ferret down a drainpipe, because at the end of the day that is what they do, they use money to make money and as long as they get their returns they don't care.
everyone will carry on investing like they did before and pay tax on their investments. It may cause some people to be more selective about who/what they invest in but I figure with a growth market like India things will carry on, innovators will still innovate and investors will still find ways to pay little or no tax.
Your experience may be valid with the caveat that if we do nothing then the bill will pass.
If we try and do something that will bring the bill to the attention of the sleeping masses.
What would Paul Revere do?
It's easy to find cases that exempt you from having a reasonable argument. One finds "mentalists" in every environment, at least he is in prison. I find NZ to be a safe place to walk, my front and back house doors are regularly left open and my child can play in the garden without being harassed. We moved here from Scotland where there is violence, drug and gang related problems as well as the religious bigotry and class structures.
Not saying that NZ doesn't have it's problems but where I live it is better than where I used to live.
Slashdot Mirror
the sociologist James Henslin reported that gamblers will often throw dice harder when they want a high number," Hutson writes in his book, "as if the amount of force translates into the quantity of dots showing on a die." And that's logically equivalent to throwing darts at a picture of your nemesis, or sticking pins in a doll.
The reason I don't gamble for money especially in casinos is that the casinos are there to take my money and unless I am very good at working out the odds I will loose my money.
It doesn't seem logical for me to do this.
So using people who, by my reasoning, don't think logically as an example of how we all don't think logically doesn't really seem, well, logical.
The area I would go for is lighting, upgrade to LED lights they are more expensive but they last for ages and have a very small power bill. I have heard of lighting a whole house with 250 Watts, which is a ridiculously small amount of power, my laptop uses more power than that.
Aside from that if you don't already have a media server at home then get a Sheeva plugin computer, or 2, and a hefty hard drive to act as you media server and anything else you can think of. It only costs a hundred bucks, make sure you read about the power supply issues. I eventually used an external power supply for mine. Again the main reason for this is that size of the power draw, I doubt my Sheeva uses more than 10 Watts at any time other than booting it serves files, does a bit of home web hosting for me and I use Mediatomb to stream my videos to the PS3 ( also works with XBox boxes I am led to believe).
My only issue is that I cannot get files from my server to my iPad, which still burns me up about Apple and the iPad (GRRRRRRRRR!).
http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1seaofpis.png
gosh this looks like a lot of Raspberry Pi's in shrink wrap, I wonder if maybe you got modded out for some reason other than you make sane reasonable points with evidence in a calm and reasonable manner?
you are right about point 1 I should have said "to the state of functionality that is present today" instead of "right".
Yes keyboards are a great deal more expressive than mice, but at the same point they also take a great deal longer to learn. My daughter could use a mouse from to click on stuff age 4 (only using one of the buttons cause the other one didn't do much to her eyes) I am not saying that she could do everything with the mouse but her grasp of where the mouse was and how it moved compared to her hand was one that was learned very quickly. So now she is 7 and has just really started using the keyboard and I guess she will not be completely comfortable with it for another year or so and with complete mastery some way off in the distant future.
The main point is, do we want to tied to a desk, or workstation or office or room or do we want more mobile computer and possibly even one that will disappear altogether. If we want all that then I am not sure how often we will be using a keyboard, but I've been wrong before I did buy shares in a bank.
I'd also better stop before I start sounding like a futurist.
A bit like the first time I was present when somebody using hands free headset for their mobile phone, I answered 3 of his questions before I realised he was't talking to me. I am pretty sure he thought I was deranged as he left fairly quickly.
True, but a few points.
1. how long did it take to get the Desktop right? If you think about how long we didn't even have mice to interact with the computer and you don't have to move hardly at all if you don't use one of those.
2.We need to start some place with this and 3D displays and how to interact with them have been around for a while but they will only be improved on when try to figure out how we work with them. This may not be as quick or intuitive as a mouse, but if people don't do work like this then we will be stuck with mice, track-pads and touch screens and the like. for ever.
3.If it could be linked to glasses/contact lenses instead of a screen then I think it would make a lot more sense.
If only I still had moderator points I would mod this up.
Speaking from the point of view of having a spouse with a chronic degenerative medical condition, I feel the situations are analogous. We would love to be able to afford the medication that may help her but they have to be able to make their "reasonable" returns on their investments.
I could really start a huge rant here but I will keep my powder dry as it is a bit off topic.
I find it odd that Doctors, Nurses and Mental Health workers are supposed to be in the healing profession because it is a "calling" whereas drug companies are all cold hard profit and no-one seems to find it an outrageous double standard.
Thank you
Sorry I've been away,
have a read at this part of the thread, I think that it supports my argument of hyperbole and FUD quite nicely.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2732783&cid=39400829
or do you want some other data, something of the gaps perhaps?
No my argument is that if even with the increase in tax on these investments that the returns that they are getting still make it worthwhile, therefore they will still invest.
The point I also made, I think, was that the article was hyperbole, that it was purposefully alarmist to try to influence the Indian government to try to stop the change in law. I still don't see anything that you say that will dissuade me of that belief.
The point that money should be given to the poor is more in general terms, with your example of the investor, I assume that the government would not just hand out cash in bags with no record as to where it went or what is being done with it and that there would be some accounting, I assume this because no sane person would fly in Billions of dollars to a place and not know where it went. I thought you might do me the same courtesy and assume that I might have a better plan then just handing out money willy nilly, but I guess I was wrong.
I may believe in tax in the rich but I also believe that people should work for money if they can do so. But I also think that the mark of a society is not how prosperous it is but how it cares for it's poor, dispossessed and it's sick
I think that may be enough for now.
Oh and Robert J Barro has opinions on many things that I find quite odious, but that is the problem with economics it's so damned fickle to the fates of fashion. What is wrong with a good bit of Keynesian economics
Rather than give the money away to investors who will try to make money for themselves, I would propose several a large infrastructure projects. This would improve the lot of everyone, not just the investor. Roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, dams, reservoirs, schools, universities heck even nuclear power stations. These are the things that need to be created in many cases. These types of projects are arguably on of the most influential mechanisms that pulled the US out of the great depression by it's bootstraps and ushered in one of the greatest eras of development and technological advances that the world has ever seen all built on the backbone of infrastructure that is now crumbling and decrepit through neglect.
But NOT a monorail!
And that doesn't refute my argument one iota. You are just trying to sum up my argument in puerile and facile way to belittle the ramifications of it. I agree Bush tax cuts have little to do with the situation in India but I hold them as an example of how not to tune your tax system. Remember that taxation or the Rich under Bush fell to it's lowest since before the great depression, increasingly the tax burden was shifted from those most able to pay to those least able to pay and the results have been pretty much the same. I notice that you say that you are non-rich, but it gave the very rich even more. What did you do with yours? invest it in a start up? or spend it on stuff you needed?
Read this comment, it's not mine but should be modded up
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2732783&cid=39400829
As I have said it is hyperbole, it is not real, it is a fiction to say that the investment will be taxed at 30% and you are falling for it.
Why do you assume that I haven't paid attention? Do you really think that the continuation of the Bush tax break in the USA to the already rich did anything but make them richer? If you do then you will probably never reach the end of this next few lines, cause you will be a denier.
Wealth tends to pool at the top, it doesn't tend to trickle down. It doesn't tend to distribute. Wealth attracts more wealth. If you want a fast way to get money into an economy you give it to poor people who have a hundred different things that they HAVE to spend it on. That money gets to work straight away by buying something, usually physical item or service, a bill or some food or a TV or some electricity or some rent. This contributes to the wider society straight away.
When the rich people get more money they save it or invest it, and by invest I mean that they buy things that will make THEM richer, they don't invest in the community they invest in themselves.
The odd philanthropist will buck the trend and invest in some good projects and will be held up as a poster child to show that the system works and that this is how the system is supposed to work and if only those damn lefties with their taxes would shut up everything would be fine.
What is the premiss of this whole argument? That I am supposed to give a rats ass that some multi-millionaire cannot build upon their wealth in India because they have to pay tax?
Angels can make 20 to 30 times there investment back from the initial loan (I admit that the average number is smaller than that but Angels don't play for average) even if the number is closer to the 2-3 times their investment, think of those numbers for a while and see if you think there should be some sort of Taxation involved.
In the poor places that sort of return on investment is usually only available to Loan Sharks and drug dealers.
So at the end if you could be bothered to read all of this and I haven't been modded out of existence they will still invest, because if they don't their pile of cash can only get smaller, even if they have to pay some tax, a little tax, they will still invest. They will still invest in India and China and USA and the UK and the Ukraine and any place that they can make money.
As I have said before it is what they do, it will not change!
I don't think I actually said anything in my post that does not fit with what you have written above, aside from that I am not particularly sanguine, i just understand that business will squeal and holler like a stuck pig when it sees the bottom line being affected. I mainly turn down the volume of the hyperbole in my head from 11 to something a bit more reasonable.
You are right, tax more get less of something, I agree. But you also agree have to agree that investment will not stop. It may be at a reduced level but it will continue.
But I notice that you you also said "drive it (investment) underground", what you failed to mention is that business will evolve and investment opportunities will change.
I think what we are seeing a small group of extremely wealthy individuals tantrum because the rules got changed.
Are we going to see the death of investment in India? No
Are we going to see some changes in how investments are made and who invests there? Maybe.
Will the Indian government raise more taxes from the increasing disproportionately wealthy upper class? Probably not.
in the end there will be loop holes and there will be exemptions and things will go on!
They always do!
That is the point I was making.
oooooooooooo! why did I not see that one coming! (SLAPS HEAD).
My point is that when new taxes are announced business leaders ALWAYS claim that it is the end of the world as we know it. I have never seen any other reaction. DOOM followed by GLOOM followed by the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!
Sometimes they get their way, sometimes they don't, but I have never seen the collapse of all things.
Things change, laws change, taxes change all the time. Business and in particular Angel investors will still invest because that is how they make money. They won't suddenly stop investing in India because of the imposition of a tax on investment, but they sure as hell will say that they will in order to try to influence the government to change it's policy.
IF this change takes place and Angel investor stop throwing money around then come back and I we can talk then. I think that if investors see an new opportunities growing in India they will be off like a ferret down a drainpipe, because at the end of the day that is what they do, they use money to make money and as long as they get their returns they don't care.
everyone will carry on investing like they did before and pay tax on their investments. It may cause some people to be more selective about who/what they invest in but I figure with a growth market like India things will carry on, innovators will still innovate and investors will still find ways to pay little or no tax.
Careful now!
Yeah, we can talk again when my daughter can get the top job!
I had a great time fraking all through 1984! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frak!
Yes, but what is that in football fields?
What about Google, it never fails to provide.
They have to put the spoil from all those tunnels someplace!
Your experience may be valid with the caveat that if we do nothing then the bill will pass.
If we try and do something that will bring the bill to the attention of the sleeping masses.
What would Paul Revere do?
It's easy to find cases that exempt you from having a reasonable argument. One finds "mentalists" in every environment, at least he is in prison. I find NZ to be a safe place to walk, my front and back house doors are regularly left open and my child can play in the garden without being harassed. We moved here from Scotland where there is violence, drug and gang related problems as well as the religious bigotry and class structures. Not saying that NZ doesn't have it's problems but where I live it is better than where I used to live.