So, if you hold Bitcoin now, why should you ever spend it, if you think it will go to $2000/BTC, presumably within our lifetimes? What other investment could you make that would do better?
I really do think that Mr. Forbes is... overrated. In this case, I would like to ask, what currency has ever been fixed in value? (If he answered, "gold," sorry, but not true at all, never has been, never will be.) I believe that he actually means, fixed in exchange rate, but that is not at all the same as value.
Having said that, it is amazing to me that Bitcoin apparently learned nothing from 5000 years of economic history, but that is off-topic here.
Every government statistic or statement on the drug war is not to be believed. There might be some truth in some of it, but after 80+ years of lies, it's not the way to bet.
We live in a country where the powerless are routinely made scapegoats for the crimes of the powerful, and the powerful are almost never brought to account. Given that, it is no surprise that the citizens are taking matters into their own hands. Expect for it to get worse as long as those preconditions continue.
Those people are self medicated (my Japanese friends tell me that the "capsule hotels" are used almost entirely by people who are too drunk to take the train home).
Now, I know some people who apply the same principle to flying, but...
I actually like most of this idea, with two small caveats: 1) general anesthesia is risky; a small percentage of surgical patients die every year simply from the anesthesia,
Yes, and a 747 might (in cargo mode) be able to carry several of the 9 passenger Britten Norman (BN2A) prop planes they actually fly (if the wings could be folded or detached). The smaller the plane, the more the weight matters.
Actually, Brokaw, Rather and company were generally repeating what was in the New York Times that morning. When I was in school I used to both read the Times and watch the evening news regularly, and the fit was pretty amazing.
*As a former print journalist, I think all TV "news" is garbage by design. It's Jerry-Springer-esque entertainment disguised as news. It's formulated to tease you with provocative blurbs suggesting they're going to give you some juicy story, after you watch a bunch of other stuff and commercials. When they finally get to the promised story, it typically contains far less information than a print news story would because it takes too much time to do that much talking, and most people would lose interest part-way through.
(Very nice summary, by the way.)
I would disagree with this in one particular - TV can show events live, in real time, which can be just provocation, but which can also show you things that get filtered out afterwards. As one example, I always try and watch Presidential debates in real time, and not infrequently have felt, either watching the talking heads just afterwards, or reading about it in the paper the next day, that they sure weren't watching the same event I was.
I frankly think of Fox news as value-subtracting disinformation. I used to be a short-wave buff; Radio Moscow in the Breshnev days was a closer approximation to reality.
Nowhere. Ever. Why does anyone ever think that something like this could exist? Because you have free press? That only means that they are allowed to spread different lies than the government.
EVERY kind of reporting is biased. Even just reporting a fact is, because the question is why this fact was reported and not another one. And considering the amount of stuff happening around the globe, even trying to report everything to give a fully unbiased view is a futile task.
Quite true. What you leave out, however, is that you can asymptotically approach objectivity. You will never get there, but you can get closer by using objective measures to search for bias, which is a very powerful tool. (It is, in fact, the basis of the scientific method.) Likewise, the inability to describe all important facts does not mean that you cannot conclude that certain facts are important, which, again, can be incredibly valuable. One advantage of the Internet is that it makes it possible to evade filters and confirmation bias, by polling different sources of information. Again, you may not get all of the truth, or everything you need to know, but it helps you to approach that goal.
You really need to learn the difference between self executing and non-self executing treaties. Many treaties themselves are most certainly be law, without subsequent legislation.
Also, they are broader in purview even than federal statutes. Take a look at Missouri v. Holland
Yes, IAL
Then you should be aware that KORUS FTA is not a treaty.
To the original poster, read the Constitution (Article VI, in this case)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The crucial thing is that you left out the part about ratifying treaties (Article II, Section 2)
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...
That is a high bar, but it's what you have to do to have a Treaty become law. Once that happens, the President and Congress cannot ignore it. If it is just something the President signs, then he (or a later President) can sign something different.
There is no such thing as international law, except through treaty obligations. The US has no obligation to comply agreements. This agreement has the same status as an executive agreement, the President can void it at will. Note that the enabling act does not refer to "pre-existing" laws, but to any law. Congress can void this at will too, or pass laws that render parts of it moot, even over a Presidential veto if they so chose.
That is why the Constitution set up a treaty mechanism. Treaties are laws of the land. Agreements are not. Now, the US may chose to act as if this is in force - it is an agreement, after all, between the parties - but to say that the President or the Congress "cannot" do something because of it is simply false.
Really, these are "just so stories," not much better than fairy tales. If further research revealed that the neanderthals actually had smaller eyes, then you can be sure that someone (maybe the same people) would come out with a theory that neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't see as well as humans.
These are agreements, not treaties (the pesky "A" in the KORUS FTA). They have not gone through the Senate as treaties. There was legislation to approve the agreement, which says
“No provision of the [KORUS] Agreement, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.”
These agreements themselves are, as I understand it, the equivalent of a Presidential executive order; subject to being canceled at the stroke of a pen. If they limit the President, it is an excuse, not compulsion.
If you just look at the photo of the powdered rock sample, you can see it doesn't look dusty red, like soil samples and rocks from elsewhere on Mars. The red is hematite, a sign of high-oxidation. The grey of Gale Crater says right away that this environment is different, less-oxidized, and probably also a good deal less acidic.
Or, it is TAI with an arbitrary offset (the UTC offset at the time the system was set up), because the Air Force couldn't be bothered to ask either NIST or the USNO what time standard they should use, and they just set their clocks to the then UTC.
I can agree with every one of their photo interpretations, except for the important one. That one, to me, looks like a plane suspended in a room (or, maybe, held up by several people). In other words, it looks like an exhibit, not a plane in flight.
I am from Atlanta. The principal whether or not American citizens can be targeted by military force if they are engaged in combat against the US was settled there in 1864. The method used is merely tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
Things are still nasty there, and are likely to get worse. I would not be surprised if the Cypriot economy shrinks by a factor of 10.
So, if you hold Bitcoin now, why should you ever spend it, if you think it will go to $2000/BTC, presumably within our lifetimes? What other investment could you make that would do better?
I really do think that Mr. Forbes is ... overrated. In this case, I would like to ask, what currency has ever been fixed in value? (If he answered, "gold," sorry, but not true at all, never has been, never will be.) I believe that he actually means, fixed in exchange rate, but that is not at all the same as value.
Having said that, it is amazing to me that Bitcoin apparently learned nothing from 5000 years of economic history, but that is off-topic here.
Every government statistic or statement on the drug war is not to be believed. There might be some truth in some of it, but after 80+ years of lies, it's not the way to bet.
We live in a country where the powerless are routinely made scapegoats for the crimes of the powerful, and the powerful are almost never brought to account. Given that, it is no surprise that the citizens are taking matters into their own hands. Expect for it to get worse as long as those preconditions continue.
Those people are self medicated (my Japanese friends tell me that the "capsule hotels" are used almost entirely by people who are too drunk to take the train home).
Now, I know some people who apply the same principle to flying, but...
I actually like most of this idea, with two small caveats: 1) general anesthesia is risky; a small percentage of surgical patients die every year simply from the anesthesia,
That is not a small caveat.
Yes, and a 747 might (in cargo mode) be able to carry several of the 9 passenger Britten Norman (BN2A) prop planes they actually fly (if the wings could be folded or detached). The smaller the plane, the more the weight matters.
I have been to Samoa, and you see a lot of extremely obese people there, even by American standards, so this does not surprise me.
Actually, Brokaw, Rather and company were generally repeating what was in the New York Times that morning. When I was in school I used to both read the Times and watch the evening news regularly, and the fit was pretty amazing.
*As a former print journalist, I think all TV "news" is garbage by design. It's Jerry-Springer-esque entertainment disguised as news. It's formulated to tease you with provocative blurbs suggesting they're going to give you some juicy story, after you watch a bunch of other stuff and commercials. When they finally get to the promised story, it typically contains far less information than a print news story would because it takes too much time to do that much talking, and most people would lose interest part-way through.
(Very nice summary, by the way.)
I would disagree with this in one particular - TV can show events live, in real time, which can be just provocation, but which can also show you things that get filtered out afterwards. As one example, I always try and watch Presidential debates in real time, and not infrequently have felt, either watching the talking heads just afterwards, or reading about it in the paper the next day, that they sure weren't watching the same event I was.
I frankly think of Fox news as value-subtracting disinformation. I used to be a short-wave buff; Radio Moscow in the Breshnev days was a closer approximation to reality.
Nowhere. Ever. Why does anyone ever think that something like this could exist? Because you have free press? That only means that they are allowed to spread different lies than the government.
EVERY kind of reporting is biased. Even just reporting a fact is, because the question is why this fact was reported and not another one. And considering the amount of stuff happening around the globe, even trying to report everything to give a fully unbiased view is a futile task.
Quite true. What you leave out, however, is that you can asymptotically approach objectivity. You will never get there, but you can get closer by using objective measures to search for bias, which is a very powerful tool. (It is, in fact, the basis of the scientific method.) Likewise, the inability to describe all important facts does not mean that you cannot conclude that certain facts are important, which, again, can be incredibly valuable. One advantage of the Internet is that it makes it possible to evade filters and confirmation bias, by polling different sources of information. Again, you may not get all of the truth, or everything you need to know, but it helps you to approach that goal.
Fair and balanced! Fair and balanced!
(Repeat until liberal heads start exploding)
Sounds like an excellent plan ! Keep doing it !
I'll check back in 500 years or so and see how its going.
Bloviating is cheap and easy, actual reporting is expensive and hard. What more do you need to know?
Thank goodness someone in the US is picking up on this. This has been news in the UK all week.
Absolutely incorrect.
You really need to learn the difference between self executing and non-self executing treaties. Many treaties themselves are most certainly be law, without subsequent legislation.
Also, they are broader in purview even than federal statutes. Take a look at Missouri v. Holland
Yes, IAL
Then you should be aware that KORUS FTA is not a treaty.
To the original poster, read the Constitution (Article VI, in this case)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The crucial thing is that you left out the part about ratifying treaties (Article II, Section 2)
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...
That is a high bar, but it's what you have to do to have a Treaty become law. Once that happens, the President and Congress cannot ignore it. If it is just something the President signs, then he (or a later President) can sign something different.
There is no such thing as international law, except through treaty obligations. The US has no obligation to comply agreements. This agreement has the same status as an executive agreement, the President can void it at will. Note that the enabling act does not refer to "pre-existing" laws, but to any law. Congress can void this at will too, or pass laws that render parts of it moot, even over a Presidential veto if they so chose.
That is why the Constitution set up a treaty mechanism. Treaties are laws of the land. Agreements are not. Now, the US may chose to act as if this is in force - it is an agreement, after all, between the parties - but to say that the President or the Congress "cannot" do something because of it is simply false.
Really, these are "just so stories," not much better than fairy tales. If further research revealed that the neanderthals actually had smaller eyes, then you can be sure that someone (maybe the same people) would come out with a theory that neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't see as well as humans.
These are agreements, not treaties (the pesky "A" in the KORUS FTA). They have not gone through the Senate as treaties. There was legislation to approve the agreement, which says
“No provision of the [KORUS] Agreement, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.”
These agreements themselves are, as I understand it, the equivalent of a Presidential executive order; subject to being canceled at the stroke of a pen.
If they limit the President, it is an excuse, not compulsion.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If you just look at the photo of the powdered rock sample, you can see it doesn't look dusty red, like soil samples and rocks from elsewhere on Mars. The red is hematite, a sign of high-oxidation. The grey of Gale Crater says right away that this environment is different, less-oxidized, and probably also a good deal less acidic.
Or, it is TAI with an arbitrary offset (the UTC offset at the time the system was set up), because the Air Force couldn't be bothered to ask either NIST or the USNO what time standard they should use, and they just set their clocks to the then UTC.
There is but one time, TAI. Everything else is just a TAI with an asterisk.
I can agree with every one of their photo interpretations, except for the important one. That one, to me, looks like a plane suspended in a room (or, maybe, held up by several people). In other words, it looks like an exhibit, not a plane in flight.
I am from Atlanta. The principal whether or not American citizens can be targeted by military force if they are engaged in combat against the US was settled there in 1864. The method used is merely tactics.
There must be something (besides a dusting of snow) in the DC air - this appears to be an entirely reasonable reaction by the DOJ.