Good for you. I live in Scotland where I'm pretty sure we have equally dark and rainy conditions for a good chunk of the year and its still weird to me that you can be punished for 'crossing the road'.
Jaywalking doesn't even exist in the rest of the world. It is some weird concept spoken about in movies and TV shows from the US.
For example, in the UK we would call it 'crossing the road' and 'crossing the road' is not illegal (it is expected that pedestrians will use common sense). The idea that 'crossing the road' could be illegal is very strange to someone from the UK.
You're making the mistake of assuming they want to discover the truth. What most want to do is rewrite the 'facts' to fit better into their personal world view (which is generally something more spiritual with mankind at the centre of the universe).
You are so wrong! There is no streaming piracy - it doesn't exist. Its a myth. Even thinking about streaming piracy is a waste of time since as a technology its dead in the water. 100% of piracy in via torrents, usenet and irc which are the growth technologies - they will probably keep growing for decades to come and its what all the cool kids are moving to. If you want to Make America Great Again they must devote all their resources to the elimination of the Axis of Evil - Torrents, Usenet and IRC!
Remember people -
"Torrents, Usenet and IRC They're the cause of the piracy To stop it all dead Shoot them in the head Torrents, Usenet and IRC"
But honestly, does anyone actually care anymore? I was a DVD early adopter (I'm in the UK and bought all my DVDs from Canada to play on my region free DVD player - I really cared). Now? I just couldn't give two fucks. I don't even pick the HD stream when I'm given the choice. 4k explosions and 7.1 bullet noises really don't add much to my enjoyment of the story.
Seriously though, do we actually know how often people washed their clothes? I'm not denying it wasn't harder work back then, but I imagine we wash our clothes a lot more often than a 13th century peasant did. One thing I know about history is that it was a lot smellier.
Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.
No. You're making the eronious assumption that Victorian working conditions were an improvement on what came before. The average pre-industrial worked less hours than we do now.
Well, make it better then. I don't actually know what you are proposing. Are you suggesting there should only ever be one of each type of app? So as soon as the first guy knocked out a 'contacts' app everyone else should be forbidden from making another? An automatic patent on any idea? Please elaborate.
If all you have is some 'unique feature'' then you ain't got nothing. Every 'unique idea' I've ever come across turned out to be either shit or obvious, or both. So perhaps try building a sustainable business that doesn't rely on a false feeling of originality.
You're just creating strawmen and false dichotomies. 'Proponents of socialism are obliged...blah blah blah...North Korea' (you missed out Venezuela, Cuba and the USSR for the full set). But I'm not obliged to do that at all. As I said in my first post, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. A completely unregulated capitalist economy has no concern for those left behind, because if you're not creating or consuming you're irrelevant. A completely planned economy has the flaws you describe. Now I wonder how we might create something that has the benefit of both systems? Might such systems already exist in fabled lands outside of North Korea or the USA?
The problem with economists is the same as the problem with lawyers - they see everything through their limited toolsets. Sadly both have too much influence.
Firstly, you're mistaking your biases for facts. Secondly, you're mistaking the CHARACTERISTICS of economic systems for their GOALS. The GOAL of any economic system is the distribution of scarce resources. Everything else is gravy.
Its pretty clear that you hate 'socialism' (which I can understand since you've no doubt had that propaganda pummeled into you your whole life), but that was not my argument. My argument is simply that WEALTH (assuming - accumulation of/constant growth of) is not ipso facto the goal of all economic systems, it is only a CHARACTERISTIC of some economic systems.
You said "wealth and power are the problem in any economic system". Wealth is the GOAL of an economic system
DISTRIBUTION is the GOAL of an economic system. How do we distribute limited resources in the most useful manner. Some economic systems encourage the accumulation of wealth as a goal (capitalism). Others try to encourage the sharing of wealth (socialism). The sweet spot is no doubt somewhere in between.
I'm sorry, but that's twisting the truth a bit. I've been coming here since the 90s and there has always been political discussions, but at nowhere near the level, and without the sheer bitterness, on display these days. I'd like to blame the editors for pushing political stories, but sadly I think they are just pandering to the user base since the political crap gets all the comment - plus its the same all over the Internet.
No, you are just missing the point. They don't count their reserves and then lend based on how much they have in reserve. They don't borrow money and then lend out a certain percentage. They don't take deposits and lend it out whilst keeping a certain percentage. They don't consider reserves at all when they lend/make money. They can make as much money as they want, so long as they have customers to lend it to - without any consideration of what 'reserves' they have.
For each loan they simply make an entry in their books and a similar entry in your account. Then, at the end of the each period they figure out what reserves they need and any shortfall in their reserves is put in via an intra-bank loan. They lend without consideration of reserves (e.g how much money they currently have) hence it is arbitrary. The whole idea of reserves is like Trumps hair - it looks good as long as you don't look to closely.
That's not how it works in practice (in the UK anyway and I've not reason to believe its different in the US). Yes, banks are required to have reserves based on a percentage of their lending, but they do in fact create money arbitrarily. Banks do not build up reserves and then lend money based on those reserves. Banks create loans first and then they ensure they have enough reserves to stay lawful. If banks need to create more reserves to cover loans they simply borrow the needed money using an intra-bank loan (mucho cheap, see LIBOR)
Slashdot Mirror
Wooooosh.
Clearly the cable could be tethered to the moon which I think at least one flat earth theory* places at around 4 miles from the surface of the Earth.
*Not to be confused with the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'
Good for you. I live in Scotland where I'm pretty sure we have equally dark and rainy conditions for a good chunk of the year and its still weird to me that you can be punished for 'crossing the road'.
Nice story, very imaginative, Did you make it up yourself?
Jaywalking doesn't even exist in the rest of the world. It is some weird concept spoken about in movies and TV shows from the US.
For example, in the UK we would call it 'crossing the road' and 'crossing the road' is not illegal (it is expected that pedestrians will use common sense). The idea that 'crossing the road' could be illegal is very strange to someone from the UK.
You're making the mistake of assuming they want to discover the truth. What most want to do is rewrite the 'facts' to fit better into their personal world view (which is generally something more spiritual with mankind at the centre of the universe).
You are so wrong! There is no streaming piracy - it doesn't exist. Its a myth. Even thinking about streaming piracy is a waste of time since as a technology its dead in the water. 100% of piracy in via torrents, usenet and irc which are the growth technologies - they will probably keep growing for decades to come and its what all the cool kids are moving to. If you want to Make America Great Again they must devote all their resources to the elimination of the Axis of Evil - Torrents, Usenet and IRC!
Remember people -
"Torrents, Usenet and IRC
They're the cause of the piracy
To stop it all dead
Shoot them in the head
Torrents, Usenet and IRC"
Kittens
But honestly, does anyone actually care anymore? I was a DVD early adopter (I'm in the UK and bought all my DVDs from Canada to play on my region free DVD player - I really cared). Now? I just couldn't give two fucks. I don't even pick the HD stream when I'm given the choice. 4k explosions and 7.1 bullet noises really don't add much to my enjoyment of the story.
At least they're not burdened by socialised health care and free-at-the-point-of-use ambulances. Let the markets decide whether they live or die!
Yeh, and the world is flat because I can't see the curve out my window.
That's what women were for.
Seriously though, do we actually know how often people washed their clothes? I'm not denying it wasn't harder work back then, but I imagine we wash our clothes a lot more often than a 13th century peasant did. One thing I know about history is that it was a lot smellier.
Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.
No. You're making the eronious assumption that Victorian working conditions were an improvement on what came before. The average pre-industrial worked less hours than we do now.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma...
You don't? If that is your concern the you're clearly not the right person for the job.
Well, make it better then. I don't actually know what you are proposing. Are you suggesting there should only ever be one of each type of app? So as soon as the first guy knocked out a 'contacts' app everyone else should be forbidden from making another? An automatic patent on any idea? Please elaborate.
Yes. That's life.
If all you have is some 'unique feature'' then you ain't got nothing. Every 'unique idea' I've ever come across turned out to be either shit or obvious, or both. So perhaps try building a sustainable business that doesn't rely on a false feeling of originality.
You're just creating strawmen and false dichotomies. 'Proponents of socialism are obliged...blah blah blah...North Korea' (you missed out Venezuela, Cuba and the USSR for the full set). But I'm not obliged to do that at all. As I said in my first post, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. A completely unregulated capitalist economy has no concern for those left behind, because if you're not creating or consuming you're irrelevant. A completely planned economy has the flaws you describe. Now I wonder how we might create something that has the benefit of both systems? Might such systems already exist in fabled lands outside of North Korea or the USA?
The problem with economists is the same as the problem with lawyers - they see everything through their limited toolsets. Sadly both have too much influence.
Firstly, you're mistaking your biases for facts. Secondly, you're mistaking the CHARACTERISTICS of economic systems for their GOALS. The GOAL of any economic system is the distribution of scarce resources. Everything else is gravy.
Its pretty clear that you hate 'socialism' (which I can understand since you've no doubt had that propaganda pummeled into you your whole life), but that was not my argument. My argument is simply that WEALTH (assuming - accumulation of/constant growth of) is not ipso facto the goal of all economic systems, it is only a CHARACTERISTIC of some economic systems.
You said "wealth and power are the problem in any economic system". Wealth is the GOAL of an economic system
DISTRIBUTION is the GOAL of an economic system. How do we distribute limited resources in the most useful manner. Some economic systems encourage the accumulation of wealth as a goal (capitalism). Others try to encourage the sharing of wealth (socialism). The sweet spot is no doubt somewhere in between.
Stop using knowledge and logic, its not allowed. I can sell you 3 cans of mouth foam for the price of 2.
You should upgrade from your Nokia 3310, you might get a pleasant surprise.
I'm sorry, but that's twisting the truth a bit. I've been coming here since the 90s and there has always been political discussions, but at nowhere near the level, and without the sheer bitterness, on display these days. I'd like to blame the editors for pushing political stories, but sadly I think they are just pandering to the user base since the political crap gets all the comment - plus its the same all over the Internet.
The US runs on Ayn Rand's values for a good reason.
Those at the top need someone to look down on?
That's why the only good government is a dictatorship run by me
No, you are just missing the point. They don't count their reserves and then lend based on how much they have in reserve. They don't borrow money and then lend out a certain percentage. They don't take deposits and lend it out whilst keeping a certain percentage. They don't consider reserves at all when they lend/make money. They can make as much money as they want, so long as they have customers to lend it to - without any consideration of what 'reserves' they have.
For each loan they simply make an entry in their books and a similar entry in your account. Then, at the end of the each period they figure out what reserves they need and any shortfall in their reserves is put in via an intra-bank loan. They lend without consideration of reserves (e.g how much money they currently have) hence it is arbitrary. The whole idea of reserves is like Trumps hair - it looks good as long as you don't look to closely.
That's not how it works in practice (in the UK anyway and I've not reason to believe its different in the US). Yes, banks are required to have reserves based on a percentage of their lending, but they do in fact create money arbitrarily. Banks do not build up reserves and then lend money based on those reserves. Banks create loans first and then they ensure they have enough reserves to stay lawful. If banks need to create more reserves to cover loans they simply borrow the needed money using an intra-bank loan (mucho cheap, see LIBOR)