It was actually the most common form of reproduction for most of the History of humankind.
If you say something about prehistory that sounds tough-nosed, it seems no one reacts no matter how blatantly wrong it is. Did you even think this through before your wrote it?
Freedom of speech? Maybe if you're in the "money is speech" camp. The more anonymously payments can be made, the more power to the rich, since they can use economic power with less risk of backlash.
Anonymous payments is not desirable. Transparency is far more valuable for our freedom.
They don't fall "back" to barter, because the traditional economist narrative of barter as a precursor to money economies is without historical basis. And in fact, shinplasters is an example of people not resorting to barter in an inflation crisis, but rather issuing their own notes of debt.
That's splitting hairs about "hyper". Turkey has (and had) a significant army due to the conflicts with Greece, internal conflict with minorities, and numerous military coups, yet had an inflation rate of almost 40% per year for the better part of a century. You should provide a causal explanation for why you think powerful armies prevent inflation, or you might as well point to cosmic radiation as an explanation.
But one of the design criteria of bitcoin is a lack of transparency, namely transparency about who pays for what. There are of course extremists who believe that e.g. insider trading should be perfectly legal and unproblematic... and it's for a large part such extremists who are fans of bitcoin.
But if you do, with all the hard work it entails, you're good to go (in the US) even if the font is pixel-identical on all sizes to a proprietary font.
It's much more likely that the Daily Mail made up some details (such as it being a Blackberry, or the guy being a swimming instructor, or the guy having a girlfriend etc.) than that they made up a case like this out of whole cloth and attached it to a picture of a real person.
Blackberry may be little used, but it's still hundreds of thousands of people using it. Things that only happen once every hundred thousand years happens every year with some Blackberry user.
Of course, once in a hundred thousand years one might drunkely send a sex invitation to one's entire address book without thinking about the consequences (or the recipients) too. It's maybe slightly more likely. Nonetheless, it's very very likely that this guy didn't intent to send the message to those girls.
Oh, drone operators only fire when "they're" being fired upon! I didn't know that. Silly me, here I have been worrying.
And I didn't know that the police executed everyone in mafia funerals, in case there was an outstanding warrant on one of the executed. But you're right, it makes sense! (in crazy land).
The drones has lowered the threshold for when airstrikes are being used. Drones also allow greater detachment for the pilots, making it easier to get them to do stuff like bombing funerals without blowing the whistle, going amok on an airbase or getting shipped home with PTSD.
As a side note, apparently there was a memo I missed, and Eastern rite christians dont really count as Christians. At least Western rite Christians dont seem to care at all when they are murdered or dispossessed.
This is because to the hawks, religion in itself isn't important, it's only important as an identity marker. And while Iraqi Christians may be Christians, they aren't in on the hawks' grand civilization identity project.
Calling drone actions by the gov't as persecution of Muslims when civilians are hit
Wait, Muslim is an antonym of civilian now?
I think the point is that if Pakistan was a Christian-dominated country, the drone policy that's being implemented (attacking public assembly so often the victims are afraid to attend funerals, weddings or assist the wounded after a drone strike) would simply not be feasible. There'd be an uproar of dimensions.
But it's still not really religious bigotry, but cultural bigotry, with religion being the prime cultural marker.
Wrong, and wrong. It's Wikia, Inc, a privately owned for profit enterprise. It was founded by Jimmy Wales (and Angela Beelsley, another Wikipedia bigwig), I'd call that a pretty big connection. They still own it as far as I know.
Prohibiting product renders - rather than requiring they be labeled as such - hinders many projects. Prohibiting multiples pledge levels - rather than requiring a set limit - hinders many projects.
Yeah, but that is Kickstarter's right. They don't want all sorts of projects - obviously they are reluctant to turn down money, but from the start, they've had a specific ambition that separated them from their (largely invisible) predecessors: They want to fund
* Projects. Bounded effort somehow, not open-ended efforts like lobbying for net neutrality or running an orphanage. * Creative projects. As in art of some sort. * Things that won't happen anyway. * Actual products. Not charity/begging.
Even though they're stretching it, you can plainly see the difference from competitors like IndieGoGo. Most projects there are "flexible funding", which is an euphemistic way of the project starters saying "I want all the money even if we don't reach the goal". This only makes sense if either the projects are not bounded, they are going to happen anyway, or the backers' only goal is putting money in the hands of the project starters (charity/begging).
The problem for Kickstarter - and it is a problem, despite their currently exponential success - is that they're not very successful in wrapping people's minds around the threshold pledge concept. As can be evidenced by their many would-be clones not offering it at all (e.g. RocketHub). People think of it as a purchase or a preorder, rather than the venture it is.
There is a lot more good that can be realized in the world by people collectively willing to take a risk, which can't be realized by people collectively wanting to make a purchase. Kickstarter is in that market, because they have a unique, brilliant market mechanism to support it (the treshold pledge mechanism).
The Sahara hasn't always been a desert. The people who live there might LIKE climate change.
Oh for heaven's sake this is descending into parody. No, the people who live there will NOT like climate change. More intense droughts (due to higher temperatures) and more devastating rainfall (due to increased moisture level in the air, following temperatures) will create a very unstable situation in the Saharan countries. If some of them luck into more pleasant conditions for a while, they will be swamped by refugees from droughts and wars created by the misery.
There is no honest way to spin a 2 degrees C temperature increase for the world as something positive.
Some researchers are contending that half the sea level rise we've seen to date is due to cities and farms pumping water out of ancient aquifers on an industrial scale.
For one, this is not at all clear. For another, it's not good news if it is - then we can expect even more sea level rise than projected.
If you had more rain civilization wouldn't be so dependent on depleting aquifers.
Rain doesn't work that way. It comes in many forms which are more trouble than good. A steady stream of meltwater through spring is a good thing, a flash flood isn't. Some areas are going to get drier, some are going to get far too much water.
its also true that the Earth doesn't have "one true" climate and we shouldn't pretend that we are going to lock it in to one.
Straw man. Yes, climate changes, same as species die out naturally. But if it's happening a hundred times faster than it naturally does, and we are the reason, and we are dependent on things staying the way the are (or at least having a long time to adapt), then "it happens naturally" is a damn thickheaded thing to say.
It's like shrugging over a bloody corpse on your doorstep and saying "everyone dies eventually, it's no big deal!" rather than figuring out what happened and whether you are in danger.
there is still too much truth in the saying that the markets *can* stay irrational longer than one can stay solvent (while betting against said irrationality).
If you have a steady source of income, and aren't betting with borrowed money, you won't get a solvency problem on intrade. When shorting stock, the downside is potentially infinite. When "shorting" these contracts (really, selling them), your losses are capped, because the most they can be worth is 100 - and you have to tie up that much money in order to sell the contract in the first place.
1. Extremely expensive speaking engagements. Standard way to buy favors of politicians. 2. Wikia. Wikipedia is so deletionist as it is because if content is driven over to Wikia, Jimbo can make a profit of it with his giant Smurf ads.
Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.
Why do you keep denying your crimes? Do you think it's OK to deny your crimes? We do know that you're still beating your wife, after all.
Pick up "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, learn just how long this campaign has been going on. It didn't start with climate science, it follows exactly the same pattern as the previous campaigns against science on smoking, passive smoke, ozone depletion and acid rain (as well as less published denial campaigns against e.g. asbestos). It's even the same people and organizations doing it, for a large part.
If anything, the enormous amounts of money having been spent on keeping Mann's mails secret is suspicious.
It's a small amount compared to the amount that has been used to smear him.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. --Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu.
Slashdot Mirror
If you say something about prehistory that sounds tough-nosed, it seems no one reacts no matter how blatantly wrong it is. Did you even think this through before your wrote it?
Speaking of, when will we get unicode support?
Freedom of speech? Maybe if you're in the "money is speech" camp. The more anonymously payments can be made, the more power to the rich, since they can use economic power with less risk of backlash.
Anonymous payments is not desirable. Transparency is far more valuable for our freedom.
They don't fall "back" to barter, because the traditional economist narrative of barter as a precursor to money economies is without historical basis. And in fact, shinplasters is an example of people not resorting to barter in an inflation crisis, but rather issuing their own notes of debt.
It's certainly a damn important factor. Recommended reading: Wikipedia article on Chartalism
That's splitting hairs about "hyper". Turkey has (and had) a significant army due to the conflicts with Greece, internal conflict with minorities, and numerous military coups, yet had an inflation rate of almost 40% per year for the better part of a century. You should provide a causal explanation for why you think powerful armies prevent inflation, or you might as well point to cosmic radiation as an explanation.
> The American dollar and the Euro are built on the same voodoo magic in terms of value
I suppose you imagine that gold, or some other credit token, isn't?
Also, principle.
But one of the design criteria of bitcoin is a lack of transparency, namely transparency about who pays for what. There are of course extremists who believe that e.g. insider trading should be perfectly legal and unproblematic... and it's for a large part such extremists who are fans of bitcoin.
But if you do, with all the hard work it entails, you're good to go (in the US) even if the font is pixel-identical on all sizes to a proprietary font.
It's much more likely that the Daily Mail made up some details (such as it being a Blackberry, or the guy being a swimming instructor, or the guy having a girlfriend etc.) than that they made up a case like this out of whole cloth and attached it to a picture of a real person.
Blackberry may be little used, but it's still hundreds of thousands of people using it. Things that only happen once every hundred thousand years happens every year with some Blackberry user.
Of course, once in a hundred thousand years one might drunkely send a sex invitation to one's entire address book without thinking about the consequences (or the recipients) too. It's maybe slightly more likely. Nonetheless, it's very very likely that this guy didn't intent to send the message to those girls.
Oh, drone operators only fire when "they're" being fired upon! I didn't know that. Silly me, here I have been worrying.
And I didn't know that the police executed everyone in mafia funerals, in case there was an outstanding warrant on one of the executed. But you're right, it makes sense! (in crazy land).
The drones has lowered the threshold for when airstrikes are being used. Drones also allow greater detachment for the pilots, making it easier to get them to do stuff like bombing funerals without blowing the whistle, going amok on an airbase or getting shipped home with PTSD.
This is because to the hawks, religion in itself isn't important, it's only important as an identity marker. And while Iraqi Christians may be Christians, they aren't in on the hawks' grand civilization identity project.
Wait, Muslim is an antonym of civilian now?
I think the point is that if Pakistan was a Christian-dominated country, the drone policy that's being implemented (attacking public assembly so often the victims are afraid to attend funerals, weddings or assist the wounded after a drone strike) would simply not be feasible. There'd be an uproar of dimensions.
But it's still not really religious bigotry, but cultural bigotry, with religion being the prime cultural marker.
Wrong, and wrong. It's Wikia, Inc, a privately owned for profit enterprise. It was founded by Jimmy Wales (and Angela Beelsley, another Wikipedia bigwig), I'd call that a pretty big connection. They still own it as far as I know.
Yeah, but that is Kickstarter's right. They don't want all sorts of projects - obviously they are reluctant to turn down money, but from the start, they've had a specific ambition that separated them from their (largely invisible) predecessors: They want to fund
* Projects. Bounded effort somehow, not open-ended efforts like lobbying for net neutrality or running an orphanage.
* Creative projects. As in art of some sort.
* Things that won't happen anyway.
* Actual products. Not charity/begging.
Even though they're stretching it, you can plainly see the difference from competitors like IndieGoGo. Most projects there are "flexible funding", which is an euphemistic way of the project starters saying "I want all the money even if we don't reach the goal". This only makes sense if either the projects are not bounded, they are going to happen anyway, or the backers' only goal is putting money in the hands of the project starters (charity/begging).
The problem for Kickstarter - and it is a problem, despite their currently exponential success - is that they're not very successful in wrapping people's minds around the threshold pledge concept. As can be evidenced by their many would-be clones not offering it at all (e.g. RocketHub). People think of it as a purchase or a preorder, rather than the venture it is.
There is a lot more good that can be realized in the world by people collectively willing to take a risk, which can't be realized by people collectively wanting to make a purchase. Kickstarter is in that market, because they have a unique, brilliant market mechanism to support it (the treshold pledge mechanism).
Oh for heaven's sake this is descending into parody. No, the people who live there will NOT like climate change. More intense droughts (due to higher temperatures) and more devastating rainfall (due to increased moisture level in the air, following temperatures) will create a very unstable situation in the Saharan countries. If some of them luck into more pleasant conditions for a while, they will be swamped by refugees from droughts and wars created by the misery.
There is no honest way to spin a 2 degrees C temperature increase for the world as something positive.
For one, this is not at all clear. For another, it's not good news if it is - then we can expect even more sea level rise than projected.
Rain doesn't work that way. It comes in many forms which are more trouble than good. A steady stream of meltwater through spring is a good thing, a flash flood isn't. Some areas are going to get drier, some are going to get far too much water.
Straw man. Yes, climate changes, same as species die out naturally. But if it's happening a hundred times faster than it naturally does, and we are the reason, and we are dependent on things staying the way the are (or at least having a long time to adapt), then "it happens naturally" is a damn thickheaded thing to say.
It's like shrugging over a bloody corpse on your doorstep and saying "everyone dies eventually, it's no big deal!" rather than figuring out what happened and whether you are in danger.
Fact: water has killed more people than plutonium!
If you have a steady source of income, and aren't betting with borrowed money, you won't get a solvency problem on intrade. When shorting stock, the downside is potentially infinite. When "shorting" these contracts (really, selling them), your losses are capped, because the most they can be worth is 100 - and you have to tie up that much money in order to sell the contract in the first place.
I didn't say it was a false promise. The thing about the arpanet being able to function after a nuclear exchange, however, was pretty suspect.
1. Extremely expensive speaking engagements. Standard way to buy favors of politicians.
2. Wikia. Wikipedia is so deletionist as it is because if content is driven over to Wikia, Jimbo can make a profit of it with his giant Smurf ads.
Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.
Why do you keep denying your crimes? Do you think it's OK to deny your crimes? We do know that you're still beating your wife, after all.
Pick up "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, learn just how long this campaign has been going on. It didn't start with climate science, it follows exactly the same pattern as the previous campaigns against science on smoking, passive smoke, ozone depletion and acid rain (as well as less published denial campaigns against e.g. asbestos). It's even the same people and organizations doing it, for a large part.
It's a small amount compared to the amount that has been used to smear him.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. --Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu.