Someone mod this the hell up; I have too big of a mouth to use my own points.
So because a few nutters were given a bigger voice by exponentially increasing communication technology over the 20th century, mean's were all getting dumber?
On the other hand, maybe it does stretch further than Norway. So far I have here:
- At least one idiot here that thinks the plural of anecdote is data - At least one idiot here who doesn't know anything about history. Really, not attending church every Sunday used to be a crime in almost all of Europe. But you know, a stupid channel that everybody but old people (and you) apparently watch, must represent the entire population.
Besides, as loufoque below notes, what the hell are you doing watching television in 2018? I'm literally one month shy of being the oldest possible millennial by definition, and even I don't do that shit. This would only make sense if you just liked the advertisements.
Whatever effect it is, it seems to apply to whoever published this.
"We studied a bunch of Norwegians, therefore, this must apply to the rest of the world, rolling out any local phenomenon." And who the fuck cares about IQ? It's just about the most meaningless number that people throw around.
Free markets can only exist without Government regulation - what people forget is that includes corporations, limited liability and 'intellectual property ', to name a few. They are all forms of government interference in the market.
If that was true, then it wouldn't be a free market, instead it would more closely resemble anarchy, and furthermore we wouldn't have any free markets at all as every single one of them is regulated. It only stops being a free market once price manipulation begins. Did you have a lobotomy, or did the meth cause permanent damage?
Breaking up monopolies is _not_ orthogonal to free markets, since it is one tool to stop anti-competitive behaviour.
False. Having a monopoly does not equal anti-competitive behavior, rather breaking up a monopoly is one among many remedies that can be used. In the case of Nintendo (not a monopoly,) the remedy was fining the crap out of them, and fining them harder if they continued. The remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior was basically the same, and ultimately did not require a breakup to have the desired effect.
Google, for all intents and purposes, has a de-facto monopoly on search in Europe. By that I mean north of 97%. Google isn't using any anti-competitive behavior to keep it this way. The reason Google dominates there is because all of the others are utter shit. Breaking up Google in any way simply won't change that: Shitty bing still won't gain market share, nor will crappy yahoo or yandex. This also won't change for Google Maps, gmail, or any other service. You could argue that switching browser defaults may have an impact, but really likely it won't, and we saw why with firefox: In spite of using Yahoo as the default, most people still went out of their way to change the default to google. Even edge and IE users do this, enough so that Microsoft deliberately made switching search engines a convoluted process in edge, and forbids deleting bing as a search engine. Preventing windows phones from having anything besides edge as the default browser, with edge as its default search didn't do Microsoft any favors (though partly because people with windows phones were mostly just google and apple haters anyways, and didn't mind the sub-par user experience they had with those shitty phones.)
In 1978 when the Islamists began attacking the republic of afghanistan because the government was introducing reforms aimed at improving the life of women, increasing education and ironically, removing usury, the Soviet union intervened to protect what most western people would think are better morals.
No comrade, that's not what happened. USSR invaded Afghanistan because they wanted to turn it into yet another soviet state as they had already been doing since WWII ended. The Afghanis didn't take kindly to that, and killed your fellow comrades, which actually made a decent contribution to what ultimately became end stage communism. You know that camo jacket and AK47 Osama was always sporting in his videos? He took them from a dead Russian general.
weak and fearful so they began arming the Mujahideen and provided them with support
Actually we didn't. This is the biggest myth among democrats, communists, and others that never seems to die. Osama bankrolled it himself with his oil money, refusing to have anybody assist other than muslims, referring to the ones sworn to him as mujaheddin (specifically referring to them as "his" mujahedin) whom he never would have allowed to accept support form the US. He did the same thing later to Kuwait when Iraq invaded, saying to them that only muslims should be allowed into what he called arab land (even though his "arab" land belonged to many more than just his race, like Persians, Kurds, Pashtun, Armenians, Azhjerbani, and many more.) Kuwait refused outright and opted for support from the US, which pissed him off, and nobody cared. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the US armed and trained the northern alliance who hated both Osama and his fundamentalist crap alike, the same northern alliance that the US is working with in the modern Afghani war. And yes, the same US that has already lasted a lot longer in Afghanistan than the USSR did.
Anyways, I'm sorry we helped kill your communist paradise the USSR, I'm sure you loved and now miss the one and only vacation spot that existed in the entire soviet bloc with as much landmass the soviet bloc had that nobody ever wanted to visit, and the community grocery stores that were always out of food...those were your most cherished times...But it couldn't be helped. Gorbachev realized that it was simply impossible to prop up communism any longer, and the iron curtan was rusted and falling apart, so the wall wasn't going to last much longer. He made a bold move by establishing democracy, which the Russians didn't seem to care too much for given they keep electing a former member of the agency that used to terrorize them and now specializes in taking away their rights. Fortunately he, like virtually every other Russian of his time, understands just how shitty communism was, and how things improved for them once it ended, so while he's eroding your freedoms, at least he's not going to lead Russia in to that shitty existence again.
Ah yes, another communistic jab at capitalism. But you and your red comrades are wrong here: Free markets absolutely depend on regulation. Capitalism in general just doesn't work without it. (And as it turns out, neither does communism, in spite of that idiot Marx claiming that it doesn't even need any government.) The problem many have is that some regulations are quite heavy handed. Think about it, if in a free market, people were allowed to just steal from you through securities fraud without any repercussions, you're probably going to have fewer investors that think it is worth the risk, which means your economy will suffer.
So many of you...*ahem*...useful...people...like to come around here and make jabs at free markets by doing some kind of a drive by post saying something like well's fargo stealing from their customers is free market at work, get a bunch of high fives from some comrade moderators, and then think you did the world a service by making false assertions about something you couldn't explain if you tried.
Free market means one thing, and one thing only: Prices are governed only by the forces of supply and demand. That's it.
So you can put down your rhetoric already. Prices can't be governed by the forces of supply and demand if some entity, whether that is a government, crime organization, or monopoly. Examples of heavy handed regulations are tariffs, which is a form of price control.
Breaking up monopolies is orthogonal to free markets, what isn't is stopping anti-competitive behavior, or more specifically, behaviors meant to manipulate prices. Even companies that aren't true monopolies can do this, and we do give them the smack-down on occasion. Consider Nintendo, who was exerting tons of upward pressure on video game prices in the 90's, even though they weren't a monopoly. Here's how they pulled that off: - They put strict controls on the supply of games that were sold by telling the developers exactly how many they'll produce, and how many games they can publish in a year. Artificially keeping supply low keeps prices higher, effectively being a price control. - They forbade developers from also developing on competing consoles, and they told Toys R' Us that if they carried games for any other console, then Nintendo would cut them off from the supply chain. This meant that all of the most popular titles went to the dominant platform, and less to others. This artificially kept the demand for nintendo games higher since they also had more exposure.
This can't happen in the US without amending the constitution to nullify the first amendment, same reason why even though the UK banned firearms 20 years ago, the US won't be doing that any time soon, if ever. Rather, the EU beat the UK to it, and now the UK is following after the EU. Here's Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, verbatim:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Sounds well and good, right? Until you get to section 2:
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
If you read between the lines and interpret it based on existing laws and recent (and ongoing) events in the EU, it reads more like this:
EU member states have to at least pretend to respect freedom of speech, but in reality it's optional. Here are a list of tools you (as in EU member state governments) can use to abridge any form of speech, and some examples of how they have already been used, and how they might be used in the future: - Even though using the "interests of territorial integrity" tool being used to justify censorship and quelling of dissent is technically a crime against humanity under international (UN) law, it's never really enforced so it's ok to do so anyways under the EU because we say so. Hence, Spain was perfectly allowed to exert strong censorship on Catalan's internet, and beat and then arrest Catalan demonstrators just for being there, even if there is no evidence that they committed any crime. If the UN asks, use one of the "catch all" tools. - For another example of how to use the above tool, France stamps out co-cultures that it doesn't like and/or speaks a language that is different enough from French that they can ban it, such as Basque, in addition to making it illegal to use words that aren't part of their official definition of the language. They also use this to craftily prevent certain garments from being worn for religious purposes, specifically to protect christianity from islam. - We've provided a few catch all tools that you can use, just don't use any one of them excessively or else it might draw suspicion. Health and Morality are both powerful yet vague tools that can be used to justify any crackdown. For example, Germany uses the health tool to justify censoring artistic expression in video games so they can force developers to replace all people with all robots, then come up with a cheesy plotline to explain why. It can be argued that if they don't, then Germans will be psychologically harmed if any pixels resemble blood, schwaztikas, or Randy Marsh getting a probed by an alien. - While you must endorse and actively speak in favor of diversity, we don't require you to do the same for diversity of opinion in any meaningful way, and you are allowed to be as hypocritical on this as you want just so long as you keep it a secret. We've modeled this after observing multiple univerities in California and in some others across the USA, where this policy enjoys great success using mob violence as a means of enforcement while the university pretends to intervene. We've improved on this idea by allowing you to subtly codify it into your laws, which is whe
Yep he never seemed like a dick to me, more like product of his times.
Ah, so being racist is ok so long as you were born in the correct time period. Got it.
When your fellow country folk are being put down and controlled... Sorry, re-educated, you're probably not going to have the nicest things to say about your benefactors and their wars.
Speak of education...actually the English were perhaps the biggest contributor to the fall of the caste system. England was ok with it in general, but they disagreed with a few things: Lower caste people shouldn't be punished more for the same offense than that of an upper caste person, and equal education shouldn't be denied to lower castes. England did rule this country, so they did enforce these rules. This meant that the lower castes could be equally educated to everybody else, and they had just as much capability of becoming wealthy as everybody else, which subsequently had the effect of, over time, all of the castes began to intermingle because the differences between them became blurred. Lower caste members could pass for higher caste members. Different castes began to intermingle, which was still illegal under traditional Indian law (itself based on hinduism,) and communication between them was strictly regulated. The problem for the powers that be was that it became extremely difficult to enforce afterwards.
It's for this exact reason that lower castes, including the untouchables, began to prefer British rule because they were more empowered under it. This isn't at all to say that British rule was all rainbows and gumdrop smiles, mind you, but many lives improved under it. A friend of mine who passed away recently lived in that era, and he in particular was one of those who didn't like it when England left (hence why unlike those who deify Gandhi, I'm able to see it from both sides here, because prior to that I had an opinion of Gandhi that is more in-line with the rest here.) While Ghandi was known as a leader there, to most he was more or less just another one of the political figures, until he was assassinated, thus becoming a martyr. The people who had the biggest influence on England leaving were Bhagat Singh, Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose; Gandhi is further down the list, though it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for WWII. If you notice in that wikipedia link I gave, backing England in WWII had popular support in those days. Major political changes didn't occur until AFTER Gandhi was assassinated, but you don't hear about the unsung heroes that martyrdom always overshadows.
Just look at JFK, he was a terrible president: He was the CAUSE of the Cuban missile crisis, and not only did he put us in Vietnam but his administration oversaw the coup and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, while having the CIA rig Vietnam's elections. Then he gets shot, and suddenly he's a hero.
It's 2018 and there's no reason why someone who has committed fraud shouldn't believe they deserve to have more people give them money.
If you're not doing your due diligence, then you shouldn't be an investor. Part of that due diligence means looking into the entire executive team's background (google makes this easy, unless you live in places without free speech, or pretend free speech, like Europe.) If you see ANY indication of fraud among any of them, then walk away. Only the individual investors decide whether somebody gets money.
First of all, your retarded one dimensional political compass can not describe my political leanings; that only works when trying to describe one dimensional people like you. Second of all, it's too bad you're so retarded that you missed the part where I spoke about the local economy (which is the majority of that post.)
You're Canadian I take it (the reason I'm guessing that is because most Canadians think it was a war of conquest on the part of the US, and they also think it was Canadians who burned the White House, but the joke's on them: Canada had no actual Army, it was all British Army, and Canada only had defensive militia, which quickly fell once the US went on the offensive.)
So while they might teach that in Canadian schools, that's not what happened. During the Napoleonic wars, England raised a naval blockade to prevent America from trading with France (as well as many others) without provocation on our part, and stepped up their efforts of pressing American merchant sailors into service for England's war effort. England then supplied natives that were raiding American settlements (which also resulted in Tecumseh's death and the fall of his nation, and to further retaliation against other tribes on the part of the Americans) as England also had the goal of annexing much of our territory at the time.
That really isn't a nice thing to do, and our means of fighting back included an invasion and occupation of some of Canada (mostly the populated regions, mind you, which was easy to do given England's lack of defense of upper Canada, which allowed us to hit lower Canada from the north) with the intention of forcing England to negotiate, which England wouldn't do as they refused to recognize the sovereignty of the US. Then we also defeated of the British invasion of the southern states.
In the end it was mostly a stalemate, but the US came out with a better political position, which maked it a favorable outcome for the US:
- It reasserted Independence for the Americans (at the time, England still considered the US to be theirs, and US citizens to be the king's subjects, which Canada remains to this day, mind you) - The US was able to negotiate an end to England's impressment of Americans. - The US did not lose any territory.
And by the way, impressment was England's version of slavery, which they also did to Canadians (before US involvement with this war, Canadian men in Nova Scotia would get picked up by press gangs, beaten if they tried to escape, and were never heard from again, meanwhile Canadians were happily serving their English masters) as well as England's own. Sailors that were pressed into service didn't get any pay, were forced to serve much longer than those who enlisted (in reality, there was no set end of service date for them, they just served as long as the captain made them) they had to do all of the worst work, they didn't get shore leave, and England only pretended to pay them.
Wait...Gandhi really was a dick. Go read about what he thought of the khaffirs. Hell, go read the whole wikipedia article about him, including what he campaigned for during WWII. So do you mean to tell me that you had a game of civilization that was actually historically accurate?
You mean merchandising, and it probably won't. The merchandising would go more towards the general Star Wars franchise than towards this particular movie
When house prices grow at 12% a year, and income doesn't, waiting means that one may well never be able to buy a house at all.
No it doesn't. First of all, if you're saving less than 15% every year (and subsequently investing it,) then you're doing a pretty bad job at managing your financial priorities. Oh wait, you moved into a place with rent costs that you can't afford so you can't save anything? All I can say in that case is: it must suck to be that dumb. Anyways, it's pretty rare for a housing market to rise at or above 12% within a year. When it does, a hard crash follows afterward. The reason the prices are going up is because too many people treat them like an investment, which means they're allowing the price of the house to detach from its actual value, which means they're speculating, which means they're creating a bubble, which inevitably pops. In this housing market, I'm forecasting a 40% or above decline in housing costs when the next recession hits. Why? Because housing expenses are now close to 50% of the CPI, so either we deal with big-time inflation with no end in sight, the housing market crashes, or the fed raises the interest rate enough so that mortgage interest is north of 6%, which would greatly reduce the demand for expensive housing.
The previous recession saw housing prices fall by about 60%, by the way.
Sounds like you don't have an ex-wife or a family,
Duh, I deliberately chose not to until I had graduated from college and obtained a decent and stable income. Why would you not do this? You prefer to think with your dick instead of planning ahead? If you prefer the term "I just wanted a family", that's fine and all, but why on earth would you do that when you still have a low income? Research shows that when parents wait until they're established will raise kids in an environment that provides better development, both physically and educationally. Having kids and/or an ex-wife (or a wife period) before then is unwise.
Yes, lard has gotten respect over the last two years, and it doesn't make you stupid (there is even evidence that it can contribute to the opposite.) What people began blaming on fat in the 60's was actually attributable to sugars more than anything else, we're only finding this just recently. As for being in an area with high lard consumption in particular, I don't know what other people use to cook their food, nor do I care, but I do know that basically any ingredient you'd like to use is in a local grocery store. Me in particular? I generally eat out these days (except for breakfast and lunch) about 3 days a week going to a steakhouse and having a ribeye (basically, every gym day.) As far as I know, there is no lard involved, (I rarely eat the kind of food that benefits the most from lard) but if there is, I wouldn't care. And yes, I'm very lean (160lbs, 5'10") and visibly fit, which is something else you need to do to keep your mind sharp.
This is why I can afford nice things, and you can't: You're quick to jump into groupthink (otherwise you wouldn't have made that retarded statement,) you don't seem to understand enough about finances and budgeting (really, budgeting and planning came naturally to me as a 12 year old without needing anybody to teach me anything, while you're an adult and you still don't get it,) you appear to not care about actual science, you don't keep your knowledge up t
No, they're trying to force developers into a proprietary standard as opposed to open standards. Metal does not offer anything that vulkan doesn't, except for Apple's self proclaimed 10x speed increase, which they base on absolutely nothing.
Sure. A poison is just harmless. This is the kind of nonsense that makes you "science groupies" look no better than members of the American Family
Actually yes, poison is harmless in most cases. No matter how much you may think that the food that you eat is "natural", "organic", "pure", "homeopathic", "in tune with Gaia", or whatever your fetish may or may not be, you're still going to end up with poison somewhere in the mix. I'm not setting it, it's just a fact.
The key thing that you're overlooking is that it's the dose that makes the poison, not the substance itself. Take meadow saffron for example; extremely deadly plant, eating a leaf will most likely cause an excruciatingly painful death, but eating a tiny fraction of the leaf relieves gout. And then there's always water; dinking too much of it at once will lead to an unpleasant death by hyponatremia.
Glyphosate is similar. Trace amounts on food won't do anything to you, neither long term nor short term. The main issue with glyphosate is that it is a skin irritant, but in concentrations a few hundred orders of magnitude above what your thinking. EPA bribe conspiracy theories notwithstanding, given there is so much hate towards it, I think some well funded hippie group would have found something in the 28 years that roundup has been a thing. That is, of course, if they can manage to pull it off without scientific fraud, because they're having a hard time doing it any other way for their other pet cause.
Maybe so, but perhaps the $500 isn't there for them to sit on their ass but rather to make it so that a job that otherwise wouldn't pay rent will be sufficient.
No it won't. The reason the housing costs are high is simple supply and demand: They all want a place to live, so they have to outbid one another for the same limited number of housing available. Eventually you'll reach an equilibrium where the rent still remains above that of affordability. Inflation is what happens when you increase the money supply. And no, you don't need to print more money to achieve this effect, rather this is local inflation due to a local increase of the money supply.
Sure, in the short term you might achieve what you want, but in the long term all you've done is offset the local cost equilibrium for housing, and now this additional funding is feels required, and will be expected to keep growing above the rate of inflation, just like minimum wage is expected to. (If minimum wage was pegged to inflation from when it started, it would be $4.28 an hour today.)
Shouldn't need traceroute anyways if you're using netflow/ipfix, which is also a vital tool for identifying network breaches anyways. A combo of DAI and ACLs should be good enough to prevent that from being intercepted as well.
The knife is definitely as blunt as a butter knife, it just has bigger serrations. Personally, I have very sharp knives for cooking, and they do make faster, cleaner cuts on meat. But honestly speaking, a typical steak knife does just well enough, even if you do make it look not as pretty just before you eat it. UNLESS you've RUINED a perfectly good steak by cooking it at anything above medium, then yeah, you'll need a sharper knife or else you'll be hacking at it for a bit.. But what else did you expect to get by cooking your steak to have the consistency of shoe leather, which you make up for by ruining it even more by adding steak sauce?
I discovered that Americans have never seen or heard of sharp tined forks, and used forks like if they were spoons, upside down.
Are you sure you didn't land in England? I mean yeah, in America we'll sometimes use forks like a spoon, but certainly not upside down, that's what the English do. For example, we'll sometimes use our fork to scoop up peas (if we don't already have a spoon,) but English don't do it that way, the scoop side faces down and they push the peas on top of it in the gaps between the tines. My best friend is English, and when I first saw him eating peas, I was like "...dude...it's a lot easier if you scoop them up instead of trying to push them on the convex side where they're more likely to roll off."
My remarks are based on work experience and being around them.
Millenials do not have to worry though, the Boomers are dying off, and once they are gone, the world will enter a new level of problem free existence, and the millenials will have the last obstacle removed, and will become the perfenct force leading the world.
Sounds like the ending of a Scooby Doo cartoon.
Resident millennial here, and I 100% agree with all of your posts here. I honestly am left scratching my head wondering why so many claim to have it so bad. It's as if half of my generation was born with a loser attitude; they all talk as if it's somebody else's fault ("they" "them" "the 1%" "wall street" "the rich" "the republicans" "the democrats" "corporations" "capitalists", etc) and so they think shouting on the internet will improve their standard of living. They're not even trying to make do with what they have; instead they see themselves in a difficult situation, and then just declare it impossible to get out of. Right now our economy is considered average, but it seems to me that our definition of average is much higher now than it was in previous decades.
All I ever see out of internet posting millenials (save for a few) these days is this:
- I borrowed too much for college, paying an arm, a leg, and both eyes for a degree that isn't marketable, nor did I bother to check before starting college, and it's all somebody else's fault! - I bought a car that I can't afford, and it's all somebody else's fault that I can't make the payments! - I'm living way above my means, and now I can't afford to pay the minimum on my credit cards. This is obviously wall street's fault! Rather than cutting our spending, let's occupy wall street! - I'm living paycheck to paycheck in a city that I can't afford to live in, and it's totally not my fault!
I wasn't given any favors at all, in fact I had it worse than the average American millennial. I wasn't raised in a wealthy household, when I was in k-12, people often picked on the computer nerds (including me) so I was actively discouraged from building on that strength (which ultimately delayed my career a long time.) that, combined my learning disorder made k-12 very difficult for me. My GPA from high school was shit (was about 2.3 or so.) Not a fucking thing going for me. I enlisted into the Army, but that didn't last long as I had CSNB (though honorably discharged at least.) I went to college aimlessly for years, got jack shit for GI bill, and I didn't get my degree until I was 32. My highest income before this was damn close to minimum wage. After graduating and jumping through 1099 work, spending most of the time unemployed, I only landed a permanent job 9 months later that was about 2.5 times minimum wage, got laid off a year later, which did me a huge favor because I landed in my current job 3 months after that, which nearly doubled my pay. All I had going for me to land this job was three things:
- CCNA (though I did complete my CCNP R&S the very day before I was to begin working.) - Bachelor's degree from a no-name state university in the cheapest degree program I could find, though admittedly I did graduate summa cum lade, in spite of my learning disorder. - Able to demonstrate during an interview that I knew my shit.
If I was like many other millennials, I would have started college at the most expensive university that accepted me and got a worthless degree because I feel I should be entitled to "pursue my passion" and expect to get paid well for it even though it's not marketable, taken out a massive loan to that end, acquired $200k worth of student loan debt, nearly half of which went to partying and buying new iphones every year they came out, and payed extra to live on campus. Then I would have bought an expensive car as a graduation gift to myself thinking "it doesn't matter, I'll be rich soon anyways", and then moved to the most expensive city on the planet because I deserve it. Afterwards, I would have
Slashdot Mirror
Someone mod this the hell up; I have too big of a mouth to use my own points.
So because a few nutters were given a bigger voice by exponentially increasing communication technology over the 20th century, mean's were all getting dumber?
On the other hand, maybe it does stretch further than Norway. So far I have here:
- At least one idiot here that thinks the plural of anecdote is data
- At least one idiot here who doesn't know anything about history. Really, not attending church every Sunday used to be a crime in almost all of Europe. But you know, a stupid channel that everybody but old people (and you) apparently watch, must represent the entire population.
Besides, as loufoque below notes, what the hell are you doing watching television in 2018? I'm literally one month shy of being the oldest possible millennial by definition, and even I don't do that shit. This would only make sense if you just liked the advertisements.
ruling out*
Whatever effect it is, it seems to apply to whoever published this.
"We studied a bunch of Norwegians, therefore, this must apply to the rest of the world, rolling out any local phenomenon." And who the fuck cares about IQ? It's just about the most meaningless number that people throw around.
Free markets can only exist without Government regulation - what people forget is that includes corporations, limited liability and 'intellectual property ', to name a few. They are all forms of government interference in the market.
If that was true, then it wouldn't be a free market, instead it would more closely resemble anarchy, and furthermore we wouldn't have any free markets at all as every single one of them is regulated. It only stops being a free market once price manipulation begins. Did you have a lobotomy, or did the meth cause permanent damage?
Breaking up monopolies is _not_ orthogonal to free markets, since it is one tool to stop anti-competitive behaviour.
False. Having a monopoly does not equal anti-competitive behavior, rather breaking up a monopoly is one among many remedies that can be used. In the case of Nintendo (not a monopoly,) the remedy was fining the crap out of them, and fining them harder if they continued. The remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior was basically the same, and ultimately did not require a breakup to have the desired effect.
Google, for all intents and purposes, has a de-facto monopoly on search in Europe. By that I mean north of 97%. Google isn't using any anti-competitive behavior to keep it this way. The reason Google dominates there is because all of the others are utter shit. Breaking up Google in any way simply won't change that: Shitty bing still won't gain market share, nor will crappy yahoo or yandex. This also won't change for Google Maps, gmail, or any other service. You could argue that switching browser defaults may have an impact, but really likely it won't, and we saw why with firefox: In spite of using Yahoo as the default, most people still went out of their way to change the default to google. Even edge and IE users do this, enough so that Microsoft deliberately made switching search engines a convoluted process in edge, and forbids deleting bing as a search engine. Preventing windows phones from having anything besides edge as the default browser, with edge as its default search didn't do Microsoft any favors (though partly because people with windows phones were mostly just google and apple haters anyways, and didn't mind the sub-par user experience they had with those shitty phones.)
In 1978 when the Islamists began attacking the republic of afghanistan because the government was introducing reforms aimed at improving the life of women, increasing education and ironically, removing usury, the Soviet union intervened to protect what most western people would think are better morals.
No comrade, that's not what happened. USSR invaded Afghanistan because they wanted to turn it into yet another soviet state as they had already been doing since WWII ended. The Afghanis didn't take kindly to that, and killed your fellow comrades, which actually made a decent contribution to what ultimately became end stage communism. You know that camo jacket and AK47 Osama was always sporting in his videos? He took them from a dead Russian general.
weak and fearful so they began arming the Mujahideen and provided them with support
Actually we didn't. This is the biggest myth among democrats, communists, and others that never seems to die. Osama bankrolled it himself with his oil money, refusing to have anybody assist other than muslims, referring to the ones sworn to him as mujaheddin (specifically referring to them as "his" mujahedin) whom he never would have allowed to accept support form the US. He did the same thing later to Kuwait when Iraq invaded, saying to them that only muslims should be allowed into what he called arab land (even though his "arab" land belonged to many more than just his race, like Persians, Kurds, Pashtun, Armenians, Azhjerbani, and many more.) Kuwait refused outright and opted for support from the US, which pissed him off, and nobody cared. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the US armed and trained the northern alliance who hated both Osama and his fundamentalist crap alike, the same northern alliance that the US is working with in the modern Afghani war. And yes, the same US that has already lasted a lot longer in Afghanistan than the USSR did.
Anyways, I'm sorry we helped kill your communist paradise the USSR, I'm sure you loved and now miss the one and only vacation spot that existed in the entire soviet bloc with as much landmass the soviet bloc had that nobody ever wanted to visit, and the community grocery stores that were always out of food...those were your most cherished times...But it couldn't be helped. Gorbachev realized that it was simply impossible to prop up communism any longer, and the iron curtan was rusted and falling apart, so the wall wasn't going to last much longer. He made a bold move by establishing democracy, which the Russians didn't seem to care too much for given they keep electing a former member of the agency that used to terrorize them and now specializes in taking away their rights. Fortunately he, like virtually every other Russian of his time, understands just how shitty communism was, and how things improved for them once it ended, so while he's eroding your freedoms, at least he's not going to lead Russia in to that shitty existence again.
Ah yes, another communistic jab at capitalism. But you and your red comrades are wrong here: Free markets absolutely depend on regulation. Capitalism in general just doesn't work without it. (And as it turns out, neither does communism, in spite of that idiot Marx claiming that it doesn't even need any government.) The problem many have is that some regulations are quite heavy handed. Think about it, if in a free market, people were allowed to just steal from you through securities fraud without any repercussions, you're probably going to have fewer investors that think it is worth the risk, which means your economy will suffer.
So many of you ...*ahem*...useful...people...like to come around here and make jabs at free markets by doing some kind of a drive by post saying something like well's fargo stealing from their customers is free market at work, get a bunch of high fives from some comrade moderators, and then think you did the world a service by making false assertions about something you couldn't explain if you tried.
Free market means one thing, and one thing only: Prices are governed only by the forces of supply and demand. That's it.
So you can put down your rhetoric already. Prices can't be governed by the forces of supply and demand if some entity, whether that is a government, crime organization, or monopoly. Examples of heavy handed regulations are tariffs, which is a form of price control.
Breaking up monopolies is orthogonal to free markets, what isn't is stopping anti-competitive behavior, or more specifically, behaviors meant to manipulate prices. Even companies that aren't true monopolies can do this, and we do give them the smack-down on occasion. Consider Nintendo, who was exerting tons of upward pressure on video game prices in the 90's, even though they weren't a monopoly. Here's how they pulled that off:
- They put strict controls on the supply of games that were sold by telling the developers exactly how many they'll produce, and how many games they can publish in a year. Artificially keeping supply low keeps prices higher, effectively being a price control.
- They forbade developers from also developing on competing consoles, and they told Toys R' Us that if they carried games for any other console, then Nintendo would cut them off from the supply chain. This meant that all of the most popular titles went to the dominant platform, and less to others. This artificially kept the demand for nintendo games higher since they also had more exposure.
This can't happen in the US without amending the constitution to nullify the first amendment, same reason why even though the UK banned firearms 20 years ago, the US won't be doing that any time soon, if ever. Rather, the EU beat the UK to it, and now the UK is following after the EU. Here's Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, verbatim:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Sounds well and good, right? Until you get to section 2:
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
If you read between the lines and interpret it based on existing laws and recent (and ongoing) events in the EU, it reads more like this:
EU member states have to at least pretend to respect freedom of speech, but in reality it's optional. Here are a list of tools you (as in EU member state governments) can use to abridge any form of speech, and some examples of how they have already been used, and how they might be used in the future:
- Even though using the "interests of territorial integrity" tool being used to justify censorship and quelling of dissent is technically a crime against humanity under international (UN) law, it's never really enforced so it's ok to do so anyways under the EU because we say so. Hence, Spain was perfectly allowed to exert strong censorship on Catalan's internet, and beat and then arrest Catalan demonstrators just for being there, even if there is no evidence that they committed any crime. If the UN asks, use one of the "catch all" tools.
- For another example of how to use the above tool, France stamps out co-cultures that it doesn't like and/or speaks a language that is different enough from French that they can ban it, such as Basque, in addition to making it illegal to use words that aren't part of their official definition of the language. They also use this to craftily prevent certain garments from being worn for religious purposes, specifically to protect christianity from islam.
- We've provided a few catch all tools that you can use, just don't use any one of them excessively or else it might draw suspicion. Health and Morality are both powerful yet vague tools that can be used to justify any crackdown. For example, Germany uses the health tool to justify censoring artistic expression in video games so they can force developers to replace all people with all robots, then come up with a cheesy plotline to explain why. It can be argued that if they don't, then Germans will be psychologically harmed if any pixels resemble blood, schwaztikas, or Randy Marsh getting a probed by an alien.
- While you must endorse and actively speak in favor of diversity, we don't require you to do the same for diversity of opinion in any meaningful way, and you are allowed to be as hypocritical on this as you want just so long as you keep it a secret. We've modeled this after observing multiple univerities in California and in some others across the USA, where this policy enjoys great success using mob violence as a means of enforcement while the university pretends to intervene. We've improved on this idea by allowing you to subtly codify it into your laws, which is whe
Yep he never seemed like a dick to me, more like product of his times.
Ah, so being racist is ok so long as you were born in the correct time period. Got it.
When your fellow country folk are being put down and controlled... Sorry, re-educated, you're probably not going to have the nicest things to say about your benefactors and their wars.
Speak of education...actually the English were perhaps the biggest contributor to the fall of the caste system. England was ok with it in general, but they disagreed with a few things: Lower caste people shouldn't be punished more for the same offense than that of an upper caste person, and equal education shouldn't be denied to lower castes. England did rule this country, so they did enforce these rules. This meant that the lower castes could be equally educated to everybody else, and they had just as much capability of becoming wealthy as everybody else, which subsequently had the effect of, over time, all of the castes began to intermingle because the differences between them became blurred. Lower caste members could pass for higher caste members. Different castes began to intermingle, which was still illegal under traditional Indian law (itself based on hinduism,) and communication between them was strictly regulated. The problem for the powers that be was that it became extremely difficult to enforce afterwards.
It's for this exact reason that lower castes, including the untouchables, began to prefer British rule because they were more empowered under it. This isn't at all to say that British rule was all rainbows and gumdrop smiles, mind you, but many lives improved under it. A friend of mine who passed away recently lived in that era, and he in particular was one of those who didn't like it when England left (hence why unlike those who deify Gandhi, I'm able to see it from both sides here, because prior to that I had an opinion of Gandhi that is more in-line with the rest here.) While Ghandi was known as a leader there, to most he was more or less just another one of the political figures, until he was assassinated, thus becoming a martyr. The people who had the biggest influence on England leaving were Bhagat Singh, Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose; Gandhi is further down the list, though it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for WWII. If you notice in that wikipedia link I gave, backing England in WWII had popular support in those days. Major political changes didn't occur until AFTER Gandhi was assassinated, but you don't hear about the unsung heroes that martyrdom always overshadows.
Just look at JFK, he was a terrible president: He was the CAUSE of the Cuban missile crisis, and not only did he put us in Vietnam but his administration oversaw the coup and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, while having the CIA rig Vietnam's elections. Then he gets shot, and suddenly he's a hero.
I didn't say he was a monster.
It's 2018 and there's no reason why someone who has committed fraud shouldn't believe they deserve to have more people give them money.
If you're not doing your due diligence, then you shouldn't be an investor. Part of that due diligence means looking into the entire executive team's background (google makes this easy, unless you live in places without free speech, or pretend free speech, like Europe.) If you see ANY indication of fraud among any of them, then walk away. Only the individual investors decide whether somebody gets money.
First of all, your retarded one dimensional political compass can not describe my political leanings; that only works when trying to describe one dimensional people like you. Second of all, it's too bad you're so retarded that you missed the part where I spoke about the local economy (which is the majority of that post.)
God damn it's so hard to proofread slashdot comments on mobile
You're Canadian I take it (the reason I'm guessing that is because most Canadians think it was a war of conquest on the part of the US, and they also think it was Canadians who burned the White House, but the joke's on them: Canada had no actual Army, it was all British Army, and Canada only had defensive militia, which quickly fell once the US went on the offensive.)
So while they might teach that in Canadian schools, that's not what happened. During the Napoleonic wars, England raised a naval blockade to prevent America from trading with France (as well as many others) without provocation on our part, and stepped up their efforts of pressing American merchant sailors into service for England's war effort. England then supplied natives that were raiding American settlements (which also resulted in Tecumseh's death and the fall of his nation, and to further retaliation against other tribes on the part of the Americans) as England also had the goal of annexing much of our territory at the time.
That really isn't a nice thing to do, and our means of fighting back included an invasion and occupation of some of Canada (mostly the populated regions, mind you, which was easy to do given England's lack of defense of upper Canada, which allowed us to hit lower Canada from the north) with the intention of forcing England to negotiate, which England wouldn't do as they refused to recognize the sovereignty of the US. Then we also defeated of the British invasion of the southern states.
In the end it was mostly a stalemate, but the US came out with a better political position, which maked it a favorable outcome for the US:
- It reasserted Independence for the Americans (at the time, England still considered the US to be theirs, and US citizens to be the king's subjects, which Canada remains to this day, mind you)
- The US was able to negotiate an end to England's impressment of Americans.
- The US did not lose any territory.
And by the way, impressment was England's version of slavery, which they also did to Canadians (before US involvement with this war, Canadian men in Nova Scotia would get picked up by press gangs, beaten if they tried to escape, and were never heard from again, meanwhile Canadians were happily serving their English masters) as well as England's own. Sailors that were pressed into service didn't get any pay, were forced to serve much longer than those who enlisted (in reality, there was no set end of service date for them, they just served as long as the captain made them) they had to do all of the worst work, they didn't get shore leave, and England only pretended to pay them.
Wait...Gandhi really was a dick. Go read about what he thought of the khaffirs. Hell, go read the whole wikipedia article about him, including what he campaigned for during WWII. So do you mean to tell me that you had a game of civilization that was actually historically accurate?
You mean merchandising, and it probably won't. The merchandising would go more towards the general Star Wars franchise than towards this particular movie
It seems that in TFS, more than one name is needed, given it referrs to the developer in the plural.
When house prices grow at 12% a year, and income doesn't, waiting means that one may well never be able to buy a house at all.
No it doesn't. First of all, if you're saving less than 15% every year (and subsequently investing it,) then you're doing a pretty bad job at managing your financial priorities. Oh wait, you moved into a place with rent costs that you can't afford so you can't save anything? All I can say in that case is: it must suck to be that dumb. Anyways, it's pretty rare for a housing market to rise at or above 12% within a year. When it does, a hard crash follows afterward. The reason the prices are going up is because too many people treat them like an investment, which means they're allowing the price of the house to detach from its actual value, which means they're speculating, which means they're creating a bubble, which inevitably pops. In this housing market, I'm forecasting a 40% or above decline in housing costs when the next recession hits. Why? Because housing expenses are now close to 50% of the CPI, so either we deal with big-time inflation with no end in sight, the housing market crashes, or the fed raises the interest rate enough so that mortgage interest is north of 6%, which would greatly reduce the demand for expensive housing.
The previous recession saw housing prices fall by about 60%, by the way.
Sounds like you don't have an ex-wife or a family,
Duh, I deliberately chose not to until I had graduated from college and obtained a decent and stable income. Why would you not do this? You prefer to think with your dick instead of planning ahead? If you prefer the term "I just wanted a family", that's fine and all, but why on earth would you do that when you still have a low income? Research shows that when parents wait until they're established will raise kids in an environment that provides better development, both physically and educationally. Having kids and/or an ex-wife (or a wife period) before then is unwise.
and live in an area with a lard-based diet.
What would be the problem with that?
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Yes, lard has gotten respect over the last two years, and it doesn't make you stupid (there is even evidence that it can contribute to the opposite.) What people began blaming on fat in the 60's was actually attributable to sugars more than anything else, we're only finding this just recently. As for being in an area with high lard consumption in particular, I don't know what other people use to cook their food, nor do I care, but I do know that basically any ingredient you'd like to use is in a local grocery store. Me in particular? I generally eat out these days (except for breakfast and lunch) about 3 days a week going to a steakhouse and having a ribeye (basically, every gym day.) As far as I know, there is no lard involved, (I rarely eat the kind of food that benefits the most from lard) but if there is, I wouldn't care. And yes, I'm very lean (160lbs, 5'10") and visibly fit, which is something else you need to do to keep your mind sharp.
This is why I can afford nice things, and you can't: You're quick to jump into groupthink (otherwise you wouldn't have made that retarded statement,) you don't seem to understand enough about finances and budgeting (really, budgeting and planning came naturally to me as a 12 year old without needing anybody to teach me anything, while you're an adult and you still don't get it,) you appear to not care about actual science, you don't keep your knowledge up t
No, they're trying to force developers into a proprietary standard as opposed to open standards. Metal does not offer anything that vulkan doesn't, except for Apple's self proclaimed 10x speed increase, which they base on absolutely nothing.
Basically, Metal is Apple's DirectX.
Sure. A poison is just harmless. This is the kind of nonsense that makes you "science groupies" look no better than members of the American Family
Actually yes, poison is harmless in most cases. No matter how much you may think that the food that you eat is "natural", "organic", "pure", "homeopathic", "in tune with Gaia", or whatever your fetish may or may not be, you're still going to end up with poison somewhere in the mix. I'm not setting it, it's just a fact.
The key thing that you're overlooking is that it's the dose that makes the poison, not the substance itself. Take meadow saffron for example; extremely deadly plant, eating a leaf will most likely cause an excruciatingly painful death, but eating a tiny fraction of the leaf relieves gout. And then there's always water; dinking too much of it at once will lead to an unpleasant death by hyponatremia.
Glyphosate is similar. Trace amounts on food won't do anything to you, neither long term nor short term. The main issue with glyphosate is that it is a skin irritant, but in concentrations a few hundred orders of magnitude above what your thinking. EPA bribe conspiracy theories notwithstanding, given there is so much hate towards it, I think some well funded hippie group would have found something in the 28 years that roundup has been a thing. That is, of course, if they can manage to pull it off without scientific fraud, because they're having a hard time doing it any other way for their other pet cause.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Unfortunately, the fraudulent "truth" is the only one they're willing to accept, it seems.
Maybe so, but perhaps the $500 isn't there for them to sit on their ass but rather to make it so that a job that otherwise wouldn't pay rent will be sufficient.
No it won't. The reason the housing costs are high is simple supply and demand: They all want a place to live, so they have to outbid one another for the same limited number of housing available. Eventually you'll reach an equilibrium where the rent still remains above that of affordability. Inflation is what happens when you increase the money supply. And no, you don't need to print more money to achieve this effect, rather this is local inflation due to a local increase of the money supply.
Sure, in the short term you might achieve what you want, but in the long term all you've done is offset the local cost equilibrium for housing, and now this additional funding is feels required, and will be expected to keep growing above the rate of inflation, just like minimum wage is expected to. (If minimum wage was pegged to inflation from when it started, it would be $4.28 an hour today.)
Shouldn't need traceroute anyways if you're using netflow/ipfix, which is also a vital tool for identifying network breaches anyways. A combo of DAI and ACLs should be good enough to prevent that from being intercepted as well.
The knife is definitely as blunt as a butter knife, it just has bigger serrations. Personally, I have very sharp knives for cooking, and they do make faster, cleaner cuts on meat. But honestly speaking, a typical steak knife does just well enough, even if you do make it look not as pretty just before you eat it. UNLESS you've RUINED a perfectly good steak by cooking it at anything above medium, then yeah, you'll need a sharper knife or else you'll be hacking at it for a bit.. But what else did you expect to get by cooking your steak to have the consistency of shoe leather, which you make up for by ruining it even more by adding steak sauce?
Unless...that's just the way Europeans like it...
I discovered that Americans have never seen or heard of sharp tined forks, and used forks like if they were spoons, upside down.
Are you sure you didn't land in England? I mean yeah, in America we'll sometimes use forks like a spoon, but certainly not upside down, that's what the English do. For example, we'll sometimes use our fork to scoop up peas (if we don't already have a spoon,) but English don't do it that way, the scoop side faces down and they push the peas on top of it in the gaps between the tines. My best friend is English, and when I first saw him eating peas, I was like "...dude...it's a lot easier if you scoop them up instead of trying to push them on the convex side where they're more likely to roll off."
My remarks are based on work experience and being around them.
Millenials do not have to worry though, the Boomers are dying off, and once they are gone, the world will enter a new level of problem free existence, and the millenials will have the last obstacle removed, and will become the perfenct force leading the world.
Sounds like the ending of a Scooby Doo cartoon.
Resident millennial here, and I 100% agree with all of your posts here. I honestly am left scratching my head wondering why so many claim to have it so bad. It's as if half of my generation was born with a loser attitude; they all talk as if it's somebody else's fault ("they" "them" "the 1%" "wall street" "the rich" "the republicans" "the democrats" "corporations" "capitalists", etc) and so they think shouting on the internet will improve their standard of living. They're not even trying to make do with what they have; instead they see themselves in a difficult situation, and then just declare it impossible to get out of. Right now our economy is considered average, but it seems to me that our definition of average is much higher now than it was in previous decades.
All I ever see out of internet posting millenials (save for a few) these days is this:
- I borrowed too much for college, paying an arm, a leg, and both eyes for a degree that isn't marketable, nor did I bother to check before starting college, and it's all somebody else's fault!
- I bought a car that I can't afford, and it's all somebody else's fault that I can't make the payments!
- I'm living way above my means, and now I can't afford to pay the minimum on my credit cards. This is obviously wall street's fault! Rather than cutting our spending, let's occupy wall street!
- I'm living paycheck to paycheck in a city that I can't afford to live in, and it's totally not my fault!
I wasn't given any favors at all, in fact I had it worse than the average American millennial. I wasn't raised in a wealthy household, when I was in k-12, people often picked on the computer nerds (including me) so I was actively discouraged from building on that strength (which ultimately delayed my career a long time.) that, combined my learning disorder made k-12 very difficult for me. My GPA from high school was shit (was about 2.3 or so.) Not a fucking thing going for me. I enlisted into the Army, but that didn't last long as I had CSNB (though honorably discharged at least.) I went to college aimlessly for years, got jack shit for GI bill, and I didn't get my degree until I was 32. My highest income before this was damn close to minimum wage. After graduating and jumping through 1099 work, spending most of the time unemployed, I only landed a permanent job 9 months later that was about 2.5 times minimum wage, got laid off a year later, which did me a huge favor because I landed in my current job 3 months after that, which nearly doubled my pay. All I had going for me to land this job was three things:
- CCNA (though I did complete my CCNP R&S the very day before I was to begin working.)
- Bachelor's degree from a no-name state university in the cheapest degree program I could find, though admittedly I did graduate summa cum lade, in spite of my learning disorder.
- Able to demonstrate during an interview that I knew my shit.
If I was like many other millennials, I would have started college at the most expensive university that accepted me and got a worthless degree because I feel I should be entitled to "pursue my passion" and expect to get paid well for it even though it's not marketable, taken out a massive loan to that end, acquired $200k worth of student loan debt, nearly half of which went to partying and buying new iphones every year they came out, and payed extra to live on campus. Then I would have bought an expensive car as a graduation gift to myself thinking "it doesn't matter, I'll be rich soon anyways", and then moved to the most expensive city on the planet because I deserve it. Afterwards, I would have