I'm suprised nobody has started arbitrating between different BC exchanges. With the current volatility the opportunities are massive. I guess you can't really short-sell but with a minimal investment you could make a mint!
Hard to make a mint when a transaction takes hours to days.
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to the above question is "very, very little".
Since productivity has been decoupled from wages for the 99% does it matter? It's now a measure of how fast the 1% will grow as the 99% won't see any gains anyway. The only way the 99% will see any gains is to stop squabbling over trivial social issues that impact just this side of nobody (ie a dozen transgenders in the military) and start worrying about economics that impact hundreds of millions of people. It's not hard, just turn off your TV and ask yourself is your life easier or harder than you parents and grandparents.
I'm not so sure the liberals and conservatives are so far apart. Much of the trouble is in the presentation and/or methods of implementation.
I think different value systems lead to different focuses. For example I was thinking just this morning with the baker not making the gay wedding cake how liberals view gays as the highest thing to protect and forcing others to bend the knee to that is fine to them. Conservatives see forcing people to act against their beliefs as bad. Then too, liberals view Christians in a bad light while conservatives tend to be Christians. I hear what you're saying that people can get along but there are fault lines that probably won't go away. I think both sides would be happier apart, not unlike getting a divorce vs staying in a toxic marriage. Let each county vote where they want to go. Using a state by state approach is too coarse. For example where I live in California there are about 20% of the counties that are *highly* liberal (all along the coast). Once you go inland a bit it changes fast. So for California at the state level it would go to the liberal side, but at the county level it would be better split. Letting people go their own way in peace won't solve the big issues that will tank the US (mainly debt and pensions) but it would help. Or the Democrats could decide that they want to be the party of the 99% instead the the party of Athiest white hating men hating "progressives". But somehow seeing the US fragment seems more likely than a party dropping identity politics;-)
I hope, in my lifetime, that I see a US govt. with balls, who starts representing We The People, and our privacy becomes #1.
I suspect that in my lifetime I may get to see a government with balls who starts representing We The People, I just think it won't be called the US government. Things can't keep going the way that they are going, something will have to give. My personal hope is for a peaceful fragmentation of the US. It will allow the liberals and conservatives to go their separate ways in peace. With a bit of luck one of the two (maybe even both) will represent We The People.
I have no doubt based on the behavior I see on the road every day in the large American metropolitan area I live and work in that once self driving cars become ubiquitous, somebody is going to figure out how to hack the AI to make it more aggressive. I see people all the time who take crazy chances on the road to get in front of other drivers. Human beings are really good at being jerks and ruining a good thing for everybody else by exploiting it first. So I expect somebody to figure out how to make the AI make the car its controlling go as fast as possible after a light goes green and do other perhaps risky behaviors under the assumption that the others cars will have AI that will let them. Once that happens, it probably will get very unsafe with large numbers of hacked cards jockeying for position all the time on the road under the assumption that the other guy will obey the rules so they don't have to.
Maybe. I see it largely going the other way where people care less about getting a few car lengths ahead because they are watching a movie or playing on their phone.
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
This is the point that I hope gets understood sooner rather than later. Accidents happen currently to the tune of ~3000 people dying a month and many times that injured. If self driving cars reduce this then progress has been made. The data I've seen is that self driving / driver assist reduces car accidents by ~20% and injuries by ~25%. That's huge. As long as some jackass lawyer doesn't get to have punitive damages that are in excess of what a regular driver would get then it should be fine. Meaning that if Ford doesn't get fined more than some random human driver then it will be OK since insurance can cover those cases.
The confusion is deliberate. The left hates religion in general but Christians specifically. Thus they tend to assume Christians are guilty of things when in fact they aren't. For example most people don't know that in the crusades the Muslims were the original invaders and will self righteously say how Christians did the crusades just to kill brown people.
What about the UK invading almost every country on the planet and ruining it beyond repairs being the cause of all these immigrants in the first place? Never crossed your mind did it?
Let me get this straight, the UK invaded the majority of the globe and is single highhandedly responsible for ruining the countries and by extension for all the migrants. Wow, either they have far more capability than I've ever credited them with or you really don't take responsibility for anything. I view immigration as a case of if your country sucks fix it. If you can't fix it then don't take your messed up ways with you and assimilate into wherever you go. Too bad immigration seems to be a case of "my country sucks so I'll take my messed up ways with me wherever I go and ruin those places too". As I've said many times, you can have nice things or mass immigration but you can't have both.
Your coworker is a virtue signalling moron. Best to avoid them since they can't handle facts like an adult. On the plus side at least you know who it is.
Sorry but for the Jews it was intentional for native Americans it was more of a by product of immigration. More native Americans died from European diseases than Europeans killing them. So yeah it was worse for the Jews.
Actually there was both intentional and unintentional killing. The trail of tears was pretty intentional. I'd argue that injustuce is pretty bad no matter who it happens to. If you want to put metrics to it though I suspect that the natives had it worse than the Jews. A better approach would be to stop complaining about the past as both are currently protected classes and, in the case of "First Nations" they get a slew of government benefits. The past cannot be changed but it sure set up their descendants pretty nicely.
It's not forcing change. You were upset about the system ignoring you and catering too much to rich buffoons who don't deserve the power they've inherited and won't use it to help anyone but themselves... so you elected a rich buffoon who doesn't deserve the power he's inherited and won't use it to help anyone but himself. All you did was cut out the middleman. There is no vote that is more in favor of "more of the same" than a vote for Donald Trump. Trump is everything that was already wrong with the system.
Keep in mind that breaking the system is a form of change. Who's to say that Trump won't break it yet? In any case it is a form of change because the media narrative was clear - vote for Hillary or else. Enough people chose else that we'll see what happens. In truth Obama was voted in on hope of change also, it was literally a slogan, but he turned out to be as corporate as they come. To be fair only an idiot would trust either a politician from Chicago or Trump, but the desire for change is real and is driving this. If nothing changes, expect more extreme candidates than Trump in the future.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel.
Sugar is not our primary fuel. Glucose is our primary fuel. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup can be as high as 80% fructose. Fructose is not the same as glucose. Fructose is processed by the liver the same way as alcohol and other poisons. The only difference between fructose and alcohol is that fructose doesn't cause you to get drunk. Very few people would dream of giving their 8 year old multiple glasses of alcohol a day but millions of people give their 8 year olds multiple glasses of HFCS every day.
Maybe someone who knows more about this topic can answer why we don't have high glucose sugar? That wouldn't be as unhealthy it seems yet it would still taste sweet. It seems better than the various artificial sweeteners at least.
I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!".
It's a lonely position you have if you're trying to say that the government is smart. Counter examples abound and even when the government is smart in a narrow area (ie NSA tapped the entire friggin internet and just about every device with a microphone, pretty amazing) they fail in the larger sense (think deficits and social security promises that can't be kept).
I view Trump as rejecting more of the same. Clinton was the very definition of more of the same, particularly as she had already lived in the Whitehouse. It's trying to force change rather than muddle along with corrupt but maybe competent. Not much difference between the frustrations of the Trump voters and the Bernie voters, they both were rejecting more of the same.
I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.
You don't know many vegetarians or vegans do you? To rephrase a joke - how do you know if someone is a vegan. Don't worry, if they are they will tell you.
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
I don't think the left has been promoting tolerance in the general sense of tolerating different opinions for at least a decade and more like two. Bill Clinton was probably the last of the tolerant left. Now they are more the Maoist left complete with goon squads.
I know you're joking, but I've actually heard a teenager declare that truth is subjective , that everything is a social construct , and that gender is fake.
So my opinion that teen us highly vulnerable to manipulation
I said many foolish things in my youth too, though never so dumb as gender is made up. That's why adults laugh when a teenager spouts off at the mouth. Don't worry, they'll eventually wise up (cross fingers and hope)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are aware of the apparent logical inconsistency and use the expression in a knowing way with a little wink of the eye (which you see as smugness), understanding that the world is a complex place with many different shades of morality and meaning and no absolutes. It's not sarcasm, but it's also not a paradox unless you're no better than a natural language parser.
Thinking that there are no absolutes is where the road ends for logic. See my last sentence;-) The world is indeed a *very* complex place but even analog control systems have absolute limits.
I don't see any oscillations happening any time soon in America. The Democrats have continued to lose election after election while spending lots more money.
Control flips, largely on the economy. In 2008 the Democrats won full power and in 2016 the Republicans won full power. Since the 1% will continue to squeeze the rest of us ever tighter expect public anger to cause it to flip again and again. Also expect more extreme people with each swing of the pendulum as the population becomes more desperate. At some point the system will topple because something has to give but there are several more "swings" I expect between now and then.
Glad to see that you missed the point. In both cases the root issue is go against the Feds and get penalized. When that is acceptable policy it's only a matter of time before it gets used against "your view". Not unlike how having vaguely worded hate speech laws could be used against [insert favorite cause] someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Just flip a coin. No matter what position you want to take in economics some "expert" can be found to validate it.
Not if nobody is aware that the ice cubes are there. Sales serves more of a role than they get credit for in most cases.
I'm suprised nobody has started arbitrating between different BC exchanges. With the current volatility the opportunities are massive. I guess you can't really short-sell but with a minimal investment you could make a mint!
Hard to make a mint when a transaction takes hours to days.
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to the above question is "very, very little".
Since productivity has been decoupled from wages for the 99% does it matter? It's now a measure of how fast the 1% will grow as the 99% won't see any gains anyway. The only way the 99% will see any gains is to stop squabbling over trivial social issues that impact just this side of nobody (ie a dozen transgenders in the military) and start worrying about economics that impact hundreds of millions of people. It's not hard, just turn off your TV and ask yourself is your life easier or harder than you parents and grandparents.
I'm not so sure the liberals and conservatives are so far apart. Much of the trouble is in the presentation and/or methods of implementation.
I think different value systems lead to different focuses. For example I was thinking just this morning with the baker not making the gay wedding cake how liberals view gays as the highest thing to protect and forcing others to bend the knee to that is fine to them. Conservatives see forcing people to act against their beliefs as bad. Then too, liberals view Christians in a bad light while conservatives tend to be Christians. I hear what you're saying that people can get along but there are fault lines that probably won't go away. I think both sides would be happier apart, not unlike getting a divorce vs staying in a toxic marriage. Let each county vote where they want to go. Using a state by state approach is too coarse. For example where I live in California there are about 20% of the counties that are *highly* liberal (all along the coast). Once you go inland a bit it changes fast. So for California at the state level it would go to the liberal side, but at the county level it would be better split. Letting people go their own way in peace won't solve the big issues that will tank the US (mainly debt and pensions) but it would help. Or the Democrats could decide that they want to be the party of the 99% instead the the party of Athiest white hating men hating "progressives". But somehow seeing the US fragment seems more likely than a party dropping identity politics ;-)
I hope, in my lifetime, that I see a US govt. with balls, who starts representing We The People, and our privacy becomes #1.
I suspect that in my lifetime I may get to see a government with balls who starts representing We The People, I just think it won't be called the US government. Things can't keep going the way that they are going, something will have to give. My personal hope is for a peaceful fragmentation of the US. It will allow the liberals and conservatives to go their separate ways in peace. With a bit of luck one of the two (maybe even both) will represent We The People.
...And I don't mean it just as a NIMBY defense, save children <10yo and families particularly mothers. They're not the ones causing trouble.
Unless you consider the costs imposed by education, healthcare, and in the case of US anchor babies. Other than that no trouble at all.
I have no doubt based on the behavior I see on the road every day in the large American metropolitan area I live and work in that once self driving cars become ubiquitous, somebody is going to figure out how to hack the AI to make it more aggressive. I see people all the time who take crazy chances on the road to get in front of other drivers. Human beings are really good at being jerks and ruining a good thing for everybody else by exploiting it first. So I expect somebody to figure out how to make the AI make the car its controlling go as fast as possible after a light goes green and do other perhaps risky behaviors under the assumption that the others cars will have AI that will let them. Once that happens, it probably will get very unsafe with large numbers of hacked cards jockeying for position all the time on the road under the assumption that the other guy will obey the rules so they don't have to.
Maybe. I see it largely going the other way where people care less about getting a few car lengths ahead because they are watching a movie or playing on their phone.
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
This is the point that I hope gets understood sooner rather than later. Accidents happen currently to the tune of ~3000 people dying a month and many times that injured. If self driving cars reduce this then progress has been made. The data I've seen is that self driving / driver assist reduces car accidents by ~20% and injuries by ~25%. That's huge. As long as some jackass lawyer doesn't get to have punitive damages that are in excess of what a regular driver would get then it should be fine. Meaning that if Ford doesn't get fined more than some random human driver then it will be OK since insurance can cover those cases.
Citations:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/...
The confusion is deliberate. The left hates religion in general but Christians specifically. Thus they tend to assume Christians are guilty of things when in fact they aren't. For example most people don't know that in the crusades the Muslims were the original invaders and will self righteously say how Christians did the crusades just to kill brown people.
What about the UK invading almost every country on the planet and ruining it beyond repairs being the cause of all these immigrants in the first place? Never crossed your mind did it?
Let me get this straight, the UK invaded the majority of the globe and is single highhandedly responsible for ruining the countries and by extension for all the migrants. Wow, either they have far more capability than I've ever credited them with or you really don't take responsibility for anything. I view immigration as a case of if your country sucks fix it. If you can't fix it then don't take your messed up ways with you and assimilate into wherever you go. Too bad immigration seems to be a case of "my country sucks so I'll take my messed up ways with me wherever I go and ruin those places too". As I've said many times, you can have nice things or mass immigration but you can't have both.
Your coworker is a virtue signalling moron. Best to avoid them since they can't handle facts like an adult. On the plus side at least you know who it is.
Sorry but for the Jews it was intentional for native Americans it was more of a by product of immigration. More native Americans died from European diseases than Europeans killing them. So yeah it was worse for the Jews.
Actually there was both intentional and unintentional killing. The trail of tears was pretty intentional. I'd argue that injustuce is pretty bad no matter who it happens to. If you want to put metrics to it though I suspect that the natives had it worse than the Jews. A better approach would be to stop complaining about the past as both are currently protected classes and, in the case of "First Nations" they get a slew of government benefits. The past cannot be changed but it sure set up their descendants pretty nicely.
It's not forcing change. You were upset about the system ignoring you and catering too much to rich buffoons who don't deserve the power they've inherited and won't use it to help anyone but themselves... so you elected a rich buffoon who doesn't deserve the power he's inherited and won't use it to help anyone but himself. All you did was cut out the middleman. There is no vote that is more in favor of "more of the same" than a vote for Donald Trump. Trump is everything that was already wrong with the system.
Keep in mind that breaking the system is a form of change. Who's to say that Trump won't break it yet? In any case it is a form of change because the media narrative was clear - vote for Hillary or else. Enough people chose else that we'll see what happens. In truth Obama was voted in on hope of change also, it was literally a slogan, but he turned out to be as corporate as they come. To be fair only an idiot would trust either a politician from Chicago or Trump, but the desire for change is real and is driving this. If nothing changes, expect more extreme candidates than Trump in the future.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel.
Sugar is not our primary fuel. Glucose is our primary fuel. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup can be as high as 80% fructose. Fructose is not the same as glucose. Fructose is processed by the liver the same way as alcohol and other poisons. The only difference between fructose and alcohol is that fructose doesn't cause you to get drunk. Very few people would dream of giving their 8 year old multiple glasses of alcohol a day but millions of people give their 8 year olds multiple glasses of HFCS every day.
Maybe someone who knows more about this topic can answer why we don't have high glucose sugar? That wouldn't be as unhealthy it seems yet it would still taste sweet. It seems better than the various artificial sweeteners at least.
I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!".
It's a lonely position you have if you're trying to say that the government is smart. Counter examples abound and even when the government is smart in a narrow area (ie NSA tapped the entire friggin internet and just about every device with a microphone, pretty amazing) they fail in the larger sense (think deficits and social security promises that can't be kept).
I view Trump as rejecting more of the same. Clinton was the very definition of more of the same, particularly as she had already lived in the Whitehouse. It's trying to force change rather than muddle along with corrupt but maybe competent. Not much difference between the frustrations of the Trump voters and the Bernie voters, they both were rejecting more of the same.
... not stuffing cars to the gills with software, but, you know, let the fscking things be cars?
That'd be too simple, eh.
Next you're going to suggest that phones should be primarily for making phone calls.
I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.
You don't know many vegetarians or vegans do you? To rephrase a joke - how do you know if someone is a vegan. Don't worry, if they are they will tell you.
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
I don't think the left has been promoting tolerance in the general sense of tolerating different opinions for at least a decade and more like two. Bill Clinton was probably the last of the tolerant left. Now they are more the Maoist left complete with goon squads.
I know you're joking, but I've actually heard a teenager declare that truth is subjective , that everything is a social construct , and that gender is fake.
So my opinion that teen us highly vulnerable to manipulation
I said many foolish things in my youth too, though never so dumb as gender is made up. That's why adults laugh when a teenager spouts off at the mouth. Don't worry, they'll eventually wise up (cross fingers and hope)
Seriously! Moar military spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told.
To be fair it's about as credible as:
Seriously! Moar (sic) social spending is the solution to, well... pretty much everything, or so I've been told.
Or maybe, just maybe, they are aware of the apparent logical inconsistency and use the expression in a knowing way with a little wink of the eye (which you see as smugness), understanding that the world is a complex place with many different shades of morality and meaning and no absolutes. It's not sarcasm, but it's also not a paradox unless you're no better than a natural language parser.
Thinking that there are no absolutes is where the road ends for logic. See my last sentence ;-) The world is indeed a *very* complex place but even analog control systems have absolute limits.
I don't see any oscillations happening any time soon in America. The Democrats have continued to lose election after election while spending lots more money.
Control flips, largely on the economy. In 2008 the Democrats won full power and in 2016 the Republicans won full power. Since the 1% will continue to squeeze the rest of us ever tighter expect public anger to cause it to flip again and again. Also expect more extreme people with each swing of the pendulum as the population becomes more desperate. At some point the system will topple because something has to give but there are several more "swings" I expect between now and then.
Glad to see that you missed the point. In both cases the root issue is go against the Feds and get penalized. When that is acceptable policy it's only a matter of time before it gets used against "your view". Not unlike how having vaguely worded hate speech laws could be used against [insert favorite cause] someday.