I could almost hear your masturbating while typing that angry defence.
What precisely, please, was the great new thing that you think only Paypal offered? Its attractive rates right at the start came from an unsustainable business model (interest on float) - even then, I started up an online business a year before Paypal went live, and their rates were never more competitive than our card service provider's. For personal domestic transfers, just wire the money! e.g. BACS took exactly 3 working days back then in the UK, and FP more recently takes no more than 2 hours - zero cost. I'd say about 80% of my Paypal-related conversations are informing people that there have always been cheaper+faster methods for transferring money than Paypal - in the UK, it's a business built on ignorance and tie-in (eBay).
The government can do its work by hiring its own employees, of course. The reasons for not doing this were purely ideological: no government work can be done without some leech in the equation. You think Elon personally trained up all his staff or something? Where do you think they got all their education and training?
I couldn't give a hoot whether Elon gives a cheap first hit to NASA. Boeing was once a young, dynamic, cost-effective aerospace innovator, and doing more than government was even equipped for. Indeed, on that basis, at least there was a good reason to initially contract out to Boeing. SpaceX was created for no reason other than to suck off government teat.
Since almost every consumer is entitled to re-sell anything, that's never been the problem with business models like Tesla's, so kindly take down that straw man. If you don't understand the problem with a manufacturer which tries to control the entire distribution and maintenance network, you've been asleep for the past century.
If geeks had 1% of the organisational skill of a bunch of illiterate factory workers at the beginning of the 20th century, stuff like this - and almost all of our First World problems - would be trivial to deal with.
For this one, my suggestion would be for everyone nagged to create a G+ page to fill their page with dildos and friend only Google executives. Use competitor Facebook to spread the word. Once a few million people have done this, G+ becomes a joke.
Better per mile driven, and taking into account relative driving styles, maintenance efforts, car ages, etc.
There's really not enough data to say that these electric cars are safer, merely a lack of data to confirm that they're either significantly less or significantly more safe, comparing like for like.
I think Musk is the worst sort of businessperson, from useless money-sink Paypal to sucking off the government space programme teat. But I wouldn't mind Tesla cars approaching the mainstream automobile marketplace on merit and winning on quality - none of this end-to-end lock-in bullshit they're engaging in, right down to post-accident propaganda.
Don't forget to enable page pre-fetching in your browser, and do NOT use the HTTPS version of your search engine - this declines the quality of results because encryption is lossy.
Anyway, if there's one thing I've learnt from giving my name as Sir Handjob Sausage-thief, it's that nothing seems to check your name. Gives the postman a laugh, too.
This would never have happened had the greedy American capitalists not occupied these peaceful islands. Even now people are shorter, lighter are more likely to be blown away in the very storms that the US army all but guaranteed would happen. Only a rebuilding of America under Libertarian ideals will allow the US to limit its military operations to defence as enumerated in THE CONSTITUTION.
~~ The tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of tyrants. ~~ Thomas Madison
I'm not quite sure why the patronising lecture about the complexity of building modern stuff. Britain hasn't been a strong manufacturing nation since our response to the Oil Crisis was not to modernise our processes but to flog off to the private sector in the name of quasi-religious neocon fantasy - now we're at the mercy of countries like China which regulate markets in the country's interest.
The USSR's collapse was both sudden and political (though revisionists like to pretend it they had seen it coming for a long time, the outcome was not considered remotely likely until after 1985) - it was certainly not democratic, as all but the Baltic states returned votes in favour of the union; and the country was in "economic crisis" in no worse sense than the West's own recent crisis, with a series of bailouts and over-extended debts following that, rather than a cancellation of the whole economic system. And we recall anti-Soviet propaganda of queues for food even as half a million Britons are now regarded as in food poverty, and the Red Cross will for the first time since WW2 deliver food aid this winter.
The argument about shortages under central planning is just one of accounting: in a centrally planned system, you say that anyone who can't get something assigned is experiencing a "shortage" and you blame the system; in a market system, you say that anyone who can't get something is simply too poor to afford it, and you blame the individual. But the outcome is exactly the same.
Anyway, the trend is toward central planning. A fledgling economy where everyone has only pencil and paper is best managed with small, dynamic, independent organisations - but an established marketplace armed with today's computers naturally consolidates.
Unless you're on the other side, then you are the evil.
If you ever find yourself uttering:
"We are the free ones." "We are the good ones." "We are the peaceful ones."
Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves. And I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that's not true, and in fact you REALLY ARE the Chosen Team. Just like the other team will be able to explain that. But you're wrong. Because it's the same as it's always been, no matter which side you're on: man exploiting man, with the powerful minority fucking over everyone else.
And, if you're part of the powerful minority, you're the problem, and you're the cunt - no matter where you are. No, being part of "this team" doesn't mean that your power is more legitimate than if you were part of "that team".
Because virtual server cloud crap is all about resume buzzwords, brah.
It doesn't matter if you've produced an excellent in-house solution, because THAT DOESN'T GET YOU A JOB ELSEWHERE. Much better to switch to something which'll end up with your spending 50% of the original time adapting to the new system, and another 80% implementing all the missing features.
1. Grows until enough of the people are using it; 2. Gets regulated by the people, through the government; 3. The usual suspects don't like joining in, and keep their wealth in other forms.
Bitcoin has no features except that anti-money laundering laws aren't applied to it yet, as they are with mainstream currencies.
Slashdot Mirror
This decision is pretty much, "It isn't real money, but something that enough chumps value."
So you think that only people who are already rich should run for office?
Why on earth would they want to do what you are suggesting?
Yes, why would anyone try to create a useful repository by just allowing everyone to edit it?
Can anyone in the world submit modifications/reverts to the code with a clunky HTML interface?
It's telling that Wikipedia (which is synonymous with the Wikimedia Foundation, really) won't eat their own dog food.
I could almost hear your masturbating while typing that angry defence.
What precisely, please, was the great new thing that you think only Paypal offered? Its attractive rates right at the start came from an unsustainable business model (interest on float) - even then, I started up an online business a year before Paypal went live, and their rates were never more competitive than our card service provider's. For personal domestic transfers, just wire the money! e.g. BACS took exactly 3 working days back then in the UK, and FP more recently takes no more than 2 hours - zero cost. I'd say about 80% of my Paypal-related conversations are informing people that there have always been cheaper+faster methods for transferring money than Paypal - in the UK, it's a business built on ignorance and tie-in (eBay).
The government can do its work by hiring its own employees, of course. The reasons for not doing this were purely ideological: no government work can be done without some leech in the equation. You think Elon personally trained up all his staff or something? Where do you think they got all their education and training?
I couldn't give a hoot whether Elon gives a cheap first hit to NASA. Boeing was once a young, dynamic, cost-effective aerospace innovator, and doing more than government was even equipped for. Indeed, on that basis, at least there was a good reason to initially contract out to Boeing. SpaceX was created for no reason other than to suck off government teat.
Since almost every consumer is entitled to re-sell anything, that's never been the problem with business models like Tesla's, so kindly take down that straw man. If you don't understand the problem with a manufacturer which tries to control the entire distribution and maintenance network, you've been asleep for the past century.
G+ has always seemed too irrelevant to elicit any feelings at all in me.
Now they've gone full Microsoft with their force feeding, I actually spent 15 minutes trying to get to grips with G+.
Just.
Awful.
It almost makes me appreciate the Facebook UI team.
If geeks had 1% of the organisational skill of a bunch of illiterate factory workers at the beginning of the 20th century, stuff like this - and almost all of our First World problems - would be trivial to deal with.
For this one, my suggestion would be for everyone nagged to create a G+ page to fill their page with dildos and friend only Google executives. Use competitor Facebook to spread the word. Once a few million people have done this, G+ becomes a joke.
Better per mile driven, and taking into account relative driving styles, maintenance efforts, car ages, etc.
There's really not enough data to say that these electric cars are safer, merely a lack of data to confirm that they're either significantly less or significantly more safe, comparing like for like.
I think Musk is the worst sort of businessperson, from useless money-sink Paypal to sucking off the government space programme teat. But I wouldn't mind Tesla cars approaching the mainstream automobile marketplace on merit and winning on quality - none of this end-to-end lock-in bullshit they're engaging in, right down to post-accident propaganda.
The private sector always does a better job, you fucking heathen.
...but Google said something.
Let's fix it!
Don't forget to enable page pre-fetching in your browser, and do NOT use the HTTPS version of your search engine - this declines the quality of results because encryption is lossy.
Anyway, if there's one thing I've learnt from giving my name as Sir Handjob Sausage-thief, it's that nothing seems to check your name. Gives the postman a laugh, too.
I started using that after the third time my card was compromised last year.
I have had the same Amex, Visa and MC credit card numbers since around 1999. I have not once received a fraudulent charge. Where am I going right?
To generate a list that long, you'd need a computer!
So if A gives something to B, and then B passes on to C without A's permission, and C profits from it, C has no responsibility?
Hmm, if only there were a way of compartmentalising my activities... some sort of limited.. liability.. thing... I could make a mint out of this!
DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!!
This would never have happened had the greedy American capitalists not occupied these peaceful islands. Even now people are shorter, lighter are more likely to be blown away in the very storms that the US army all but guaranteed would happen. Only a rebuilding of America under Libertarian ideals will allow the US to limit its military operations to defence as enumerated in THE CONSTITUTION.
~~ The tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of tyrants. ~~ Thomas Madison
I'm not quite sure why the patronising lecture about the complexity of building modern stuff. Britain hasn't been a strong manufacturing nation since our response to the Oil Crisis was not to modernise our processes but to flog off to the private sector in the name of quasi-religious neocon fantasy - now we're at the mercy of countries like China which regulate markets in the country's interest.
The USSR's collapse was both sudden and political (though revisionists like to pretend it they had seen it coming for a long time, the outcome was not considered remotely likely until after 1985) - it was certainly not democratic, as all but the Baltic states returned votes in favour of the union; and the country was in "economic crisis" in no worse sense than the West's own recent crisis, with a series of bailouts and over-extended debts following that, rather than a cancellation of the whole economic system. And we recall anti-Soviet propaganda of queues for food even as half a million Britons are now regarded as in food poverty, and the Red Cross will for the first time since WW2 deliver food aid this winter.
The argument about shortages under central planning is just one of accounting: in a centrally planned system, you say that anyone who can't get something assigned is experiencing a "shortage" and you blame the system; in a market system, you say that anyone who can't get something is simply too poor to afford it, and you blame the individual. But the outcome is exactly the same.
Anyway, the trend is toward central planning. A fledgling economy where everyone has only pencil and paper is best managed with small, dynamic, independent organisations - but an established marketplace armed with today's computers naturally consolidates.
Can't spy on everyone without power.
Can't pull over black drivers for being black without power.
What matters is not what you fantasise about doing, but whether you have the power to do it.
Impotent assholes are irrelevant.
It'll always lead to the same thing: if you have the opportunity for power, do you wield it, or do you relinquish it?
I'm saying that there is no distinction between people except in the amount of power they have.
The TP is just a sponsored parody of political protest, like Libertarians are a parody of classical libertarianism.
It's all in the name of fighting evil.
Unless you're on the other side, then you are the evil.
If you ever find yourself uttering:
"We are the free ones."
"We are the good ones."
"We are the peaceful ones."
Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves. And I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that's not true, and in fact you REALLY ARE the Chosen Team. Just like the other team will be able to explain that. But you're wrong. Because it's the same as it's always been, no matter which side you're on: man exploiting man, with the powerful minority fucking over everyone else.
And, if you're part of the powerful minority, you're the problem, and you're the cunt - no matter where you are. No, being part of "this team" doesn't mean that your power is more legitimate than if you were part of "that team".
It's not like you can easily learn the subtleties of touch later on in life.
"The subtleties of touch" sounds like a feminist Leisure Suit Larry sequel.
Because virtual server cloud crap is all about resume buzzwords, brah.
It doesn't matter if you've produced an excellent in-house solution, because THAT DOESN'T GET YOU A JOB ELSEWHERE. Much better to switch to something which'll end up with your spending 50% of the original time adapting to the new system, and another 80% implementing all the missing features.
So, like any other nascent currency.
1. Grows until enough of the people are using it;
2. Gets regulated by the people, through the government;
3. The usual suspects don't like joining in, and keep their wealth in other forms.
Bitcoin has no features except that anti-money laundering laws aren't applied to it yet, as they are with mainstream currencies.