Dude, what are you talking about? This is what Greece currently owes. i.e. money they are paying to their creditors. There was a haircut on the debt (what you're referring to, I think), but they still owe lots of money and they're still paying it back. The whole point of this is that they're not allowed to default, because if they did that would likely mean a Euro exit, which nobody wants. So they're forced to take the loans the pay the loans.
That's a cartoonish description of what's going on. Tsipras just last night was the first Greek PM (that I know of) who cut a load of MP benefits in order to set an example to the rest of the nation. e.g. getting rid of subsided cars, selling half the limo fleet, selling one of three government jets. At least they're practising what they preach.
does, give away more "free" stuff.
America's debt was peaking at the end of WWII and it was concerned about going back into another depression when the war ended. What did it do? Marshal Plan. Pumped billions into other countries. The US gave Europe and Japan "free stuff" in order to build up their economies and allow them to buy US goods. This allowed the US to do something with its trade surplus and the money earned by other countries came back to Wall Street to be invested. This worked well for some time. I'm not saying Greece now is the same as the 40's US. Of course not. But your notion of economics is simplistic. What you describe works for individuals (don't spend money you don't have) but not for nations. They tried austerity and it didn't work.
Yes, they are being asked to pay it back. They have 25 billion to pay back this year. They are paying it back with money from the loans they're taking.
My guess is that the value of 'generic' domain names dropped considerably when search engines matured. Does anyone actually type a generic domain name before doing a search and is there any search engine value to a generic name?
No, but I do look at the domain name before I click the link in the search results. It can help spot malware sites, etc.
Any honest person involved in surveys knows how easily they can be manipulated. That doesn't make surveys worthless. It just means that if you want to trust the results then you need to know who did the survey, why they did it, who paid for it, how they chose the subjects, etc. i.e. you need to know the methods. Of course, this is often lacking but it doesn't have to be.
Exactly. Furthermore, there are many ways something can be "genetically modified." e.g. You can modify a tomato to downregulate expression of an existing protein to make the fruit bruise less. You can also modify a planet to secrete insecticide. I'm certain that the former is safe but I'd reserve judgement on the latter depending on what the insecticide was. Furthermore, what if the insecticide is safe for me but it kills bees? GMO is too broad an issue for blanket statements.
Interesting. It could be because there's little preaching in church and there's little force-feeding of dogma. So the church blends more into the background and pagan superstitions, such the evil eye, and the Kallikantzaroi can become more easily attached to it.
Because a lot of Greeks consider being Christian Orthodox as being part of the package of being Greek. TBH believing in the god stuff likely isn't as imporant but going through the motions is. There is more of a superstitious element to the belief than elsewhere I've seen and it's not like the more hard-line Christians in the US. Tsipras decided not to have his vows administered by the bishop, but to have a civil ceremony instead. I think this is the first time that has happened (although the PASOK governments did weaken the power of the church in governement, IIRC).
Calling him "Valve's Economist" implies that this is Yanis Varoufakis' main role in life. It's not. He's done some economics research at Valve and some consulting there. He's mainly known for other stuff, as you can see from other posts here or from Googling him.
It's too bad we live in a country almost entirely run by lobbyists...
I agree completely. You'll have a heck of a time getting rid of them too, since any attempt to do so will be branded as curtailing freedom of speech. I'll probably get modded flaimbait (again) for saying this: but the US (like other countries) doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. There is no such thing anywhere. So it's time of the government to stop pretending that money and companies can have freedom of speech and to stamp out the bullshit that's silencing the voice of the people they are supposed to be representing.
I ran Linux on my first MacBook Pro, but eventually I gave up. OS X just ran better on the hardware. Linux would sometimes fail to suspend on lid close and if this happened with the machine in a bag it would get super hot. The touch pad never felt right on Linux. I think the battery life was worse. It just wasn't worth it in the end, since OS X has most of the Unixy features I want.
have modelled a rats brain down to molecular resolutions
No they haven't. It's not possible because we lack the data to make the model. The link you supply more or less says that. What they did is model is a local region of cortex, and even this we don't know very well. It's basically bullshit.
I don't know why you're singling out Islam. It's no more false a religion than any other, since they're all just made up by people and not "true" in any meaningful sense. Religions are often pretty sexist, certainly both Judaism and Christianity can be, so Islam is no exception there (even though it can be on the nastier end). Religions in general have a tendency to violence, as they creates a strong sense of righteousness in their believers. Christianity has been pretty damn violent and oppressive in the past. Saying that an established religion should be outlawed just isn't helpful and doesn't display an understanding of the situation we have.
I agree that Islam can be violent. I also disagree with people who say that the fanatics have "twisted" Islam into something violent and aren't true Muslims. As far as the fanatics are concerned, they are true Muslims. Given that there's no absolute truth in religion, since it's all just made up, it seems to me that anyone can claim anything they like. So the peaceful Muslims can legitimately say that their religion is about peace and the crazy bastards can legitimately say that it's about killing heretical non-believers. They're both right because these belief systems are incoherent, self-contradictory messes. In the end all organised religion is about power, whether wielded in peace or in anger.
speech" in the sense that we have it here in the USA but more like "mostly you can say what you want as long as you don't offend people too much"
I've been down-modded a lot for saying this today, but you also have limitations on what constitutes freedom of speech in the US. It's really not so different from many European countries. The boundaries are drawn differently from other countries, but there are still boundaries.
There's this idea that "freedom of speech" is a binary thing which you either have or don't have. But it isn't: it's a graded thing (both in Europe and in the US). The law regulates your speech in a similar manner to the way it regulates your actions, the actions of companies, acceptable behavior of the markets, etc.
In my opinion, the key thing about freedom of speech is that citizens can criticise their government and leaders. This is the bedrock of democracy and is as important as the vote. This is what the US constitution gives you and why freedom of speech is a big deal in the US.
Considering the timing, do you really believe this idea isn't designed to be applied to folks like Charlie Hebdo ?
I do not believe it will be used this way, no.
They'll simply classify satire as abusive or hate speech and that will pretty much be the end of it. Can't make fun of the Muslims anymore, they tend to lose their minds and firebomb embassies, behead " infidels ", or shoot up the place.
I don't think that's the idea. Nobody has said or hinted this, as far as I know.
The thing to consider going forward is now that Islam knows violence works to get their way, they'll continue to use it to enforce their will / beliefs upon the rest of the world out of fear of further violence.:|
They know that, yes, and have known that for some time. Hence their reliance on terrorism, which is what this is.
controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.
There are already restrictions on what you can say and these vary by country. If you don't see that, it's because you accept utterly what those restrictions are. The only question is where the line is drawn and in the light of recent events we are debating whether it needs to be re-drawn. This is not a new idea and isn't itself problematic. The really important line however is whether or not you're allowed to criticise the government and what the country stands for in general. There are certainly places in the US where doing the latter will get you beaten up or verbally abused. Frankly, I see that as a bigger problem than muzzling muslim fundamentalist nutjobs who mostly live abroad.
aren't all crimes hate crimes?
No, of course not. Read the definition on the internet.
There are various other restrictions to free speech in the US, in addition to the two you mention. I agree that by making a fuss we are giving the assholes the attention they crave but I don't think it's fair to blame WWII on a lack of freedom of speech. There was a lot more to it than that. Interestingly, one of the first thing the allies did when they occupied Germany was to censor the media. Later, Germany re-drafted its laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, what are you talking about? This is what Greece currently owes. i.e. money they are paying to their creditors. There was a haircut on the debt (what you're referring to, I think), but they still owe lots of money and they're still paying it back. The whole point of this is that they're not allowed to default, because if they did that would likely mean a Euro exit, which nobody wants. So they're forced to take the loans the pay the loans.
does, give away more "free" stuff.
America's debt was peaking at the end of WWII and it was concerned about going back into another depression when the war ended. What did it do? Marshal Plan. Pumped billions into other countries. The US gave Europe and Japan "free stuff" in order to build up their economies and allow them to buy US goods. This allowed the US to do something with its trade surplus and the money earned by other countries came back to Wall Street to be invested. This worked well for some time. I'm not saying Greece now is the same as the 40's US. Of course not. But your notion of economics is simplistic. What you describe works for individuals (don't spend money you don't have) but not for nations. They tried austerity and it didn't work.
They're not being asked to pay back their debt.
Yes, they are being asked to pay it back. They have 25 billion to pay back this year. They are paying it back with money from the loans they're taking.
Erm... I don't think Britain is socialist. Thatcher? It's currently being ruled by a right wing government who would love scrap the NHS.
There's something about wealth redistribution that is significantly more attractive when you're on the receiving end, or at least on the sidelines.
Of course. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem and that something shouldn't be done about it.
My guess is that the value of 'generic' domain names dropped considerably when search engines matured. Does anyone actually type a generic domain name before doing a search and is there any search engine value to a generic name?
No, but I do look at the domain name before I click the link in the search results. It can help spot malware sites, etc.
How much do you think gouda.com is worth? What kind of startup would trade part of themselves for gouda.com?
Plenty of people out there want to buy names like these for commercial purposes: rockingchairs.com, hammocks.com, www.wine.com, www.petfood.com
Any honest person involved in surveys knows how easily they can be manipulated. That doesn't make surveys worthless. It just means that if you want to trust the results then you need to know who did the survey, why they did it, who paid for it, how they chose the subjects, etc. i.e. you need to know the methods. Of course, this is often lacking but it doesn't have to be.
Exactly. Furthermore, there are many ways something can be "genetically modified." e.g. You can modify a tomato to downregulate expression of an existing protein to make the fruit bruise less. You can also modify a planet to secrete insecticide. I'm certain that the former is safe but I'd reserve judgement on the latter depending on what the insecticide was. Furthermore, what if the insecticide is safe for me but it kills bees? GMO is too broad an issue for blanket statements.
Interesting. It could be because there's little preaching in church and there's little force-feeding of dogma. So the church blends more into the background and pagan superstitions, such the evil eye, and the Kallikantzaroi can become more easily attached to it.
I think you were meaning NZ and I thought you were talking about CH. Apologies.
Nobody said anything about "without consent" there are about to be negotiations.
There are more plans than that. e.g. linking debt repayments to growth not to the budget.
Because a lot of Greeks consider being Christian Orthodox as being part of the package of being Greek. TBH believing in the god stuff likely isn't as imporant but going through the motions is. There is more of a superstitious element to the belief than elsewhere I've seen and it's not like the more hard-line Christians in the US. Tsipras decided not to have his vows administered by the bishop, but to have a civil ceremony instead. I think this is the first time that has happened (although the PASOK governments did weaken the power of the church in governement, IIRC).
Calling him "Valve's Economist" implies that this is Yanis Varoufakis' main role in life. It's not. He's done some economics research at Valve and some consulting there. He's mainly known for other stuff, as you can see from other posts here or from Googling him.
They would really be much better served by being in a functioning healthy country.
Do you know much about Switzerland?
It's too bad we live in a country almost entirely run by lobbyists...
I agree completely. You'll have a heck of a time getting rid of them too, since any attempt to do so will be branded as curtailing freedom of speech. I'll probably get modded flaimbait (again) for saying this: but the US (like other countries) doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. There is no such thing anywhere. So it's time of the government to stop pretending that money and companies can have freedom of speech and to stamp out the bullshit that's silencing the voice of the people they are supposed to be representing.
Got to say, I middle-click a lot and I've not had a problem with the MS Intelimouse for this purpose.
I ran Linux on my first MacBook Pro, but eventually I gave up. OS X just ran better on the hardware. Linux would sometimes fail to suspend on lid close and if this happened with the machine in a bag it would get super hot. The touch pad never felt right on Linux. I think the battery life was worse. It just wasn't worth it in the end, since OS X has most of the Unixy features I want.
have modelled a rats brain down to molecular resolutions
No they haven't. It's not possible because we lack the data to make the model. The link you supply more or less says that. What they did is model is a local region of cortex, and even this we don't know very well. It's basically bullshit.
I don't know why you're singling out Islam. It's no more false a religion than any other, since they're all just made up by people and not "true" in any meaningful sense. Religions are often pretty sexist, certainly both Judaism and Christianity can be, so Islam is no exception there (even though it can be on the nastier end). Religions in general have a tendency to violence, as they creates a strong sense of righteousness in their believers. Christianity has been pretty damn violent and oppressive in the past. Saying that an established religion should be outlawed just isn't helpful and doesn't display an understanding of the situation we have.
I agree that Islam can be violent. I also disagree with people who say that the fanatics have "twisted" Islam into something violent and aren't true Muslims. As far as the fanatics are concerned, they are true Muslims. Given that there's no absolute truth in religion, since it's all just made up, it seems to me that anyone can claim anything they like. So the peaceful Muslims can legitimately say that their religion is about peace and the crazy bastards can legitimately say that it's about killing heretical non-believers. They're both right because these belief systems are incoherent, self-contradictory messes. In the end all organised religion is about power, whether wielded in peace or in anger.
speech" in the sense that we have it here in the USA but more like "mostly you can say what you want as long as you don't offend people too much"
I've been down-modded a lot for saying this today, but you also have limitations on what constitutes freedom of speech in the US. It's really not so different from many European countries. The boundaries are drawn differently from other countries, but there are still boundaries.
There's this idea that "freedom of speech" is a binary thing which you either have or don't have. But it isn't: it's a graded thing (both in Europe and in the US). The law regulates your speech in a similar manner to the way it regulates your actions, the actions of companies, acceptable behavior of the markets, etc.
In my opinion, the key thing about freedom of speech is that citizens can criticise their government and leaders. This is the bedrock of democracy and is as important as the vote. This is what the US constitution gives you and why freedom of speech is a big deal in the US.
Considering the timing, do you really believe this idea isn't designed to be applied to folks like Charlie Hebdo ?
I do not believe it will be used this way, no.
They'll simply classify satire as abusive or hate speech and that will pretty much be the end of it. Can't make fun of the Muslims anymore, they tend to lose their minds and firebomb embassies, behead " infidels ", or shoot up the place.
I don't think that's the idea. Nobody has said or hinted this, as far as I know.
The thing to consider going forward is now that Islam knows violence works to get their way, they'll continue to use it to enforce their will / beliefs upon the rest of the world out of fear of further violence. :|
They know that, yes, and have known that for some time. Hence their reliance on terrorism, which is what this is.
controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.
There are already restrictions on what you can say and these vary by country. If you don't see that, it's because you accept utterly what those restrictions are. The only question is where the line is drawn and in the light of recent events we are debating whether it needs to be re-drawn. This is not a new idea and isn't itself problematic. The really important line however is whether or not you're allowed to criticise the government and what the country stands for in general. There are certainly places in the US where doing the latter will get you beaten up or verbally abused. Frankly, I see that as a bigger problem than muzzling muslim fundamentalist nutjobs who mostly live abroad.
aren't all crimes hate crimes?
No, of course not. Read the definition on the internet.
There are various other restrictions to free speech in the US, in addition to the two you mention. I agree that by making a fuss we are giving the assholes the attention they crave but I don't think it's fair to blame WWII on a lack of freedom of speech. There was a lot more to it than that. Interestingly, one of the first thing the allies did when they occupied Germany was to censor the media. Later, Germany re-drafted its laws.