"More specifically, since the poor benefit more in comparison to their tax burden from government programs funded by this money"
I dispute this. While the poor appear to use the services of government the most, it's my opinion that the wealthy benefit the most from it. If someone in East Oakland's house gets robbed, they generally won't lose near as much as someone in the Claremont or Oakland Hills districts.
Similarly, when MacArthur (runs through some of the poorest Oakland neighborhoods) was torn up for repaving a few years back, the road was left rough and unfinished for six months, while Lincoln Avenue in Piedmont/Oakland Hills was completed start-to-finish in about a month.
The poor paying too much, and are getting a pretty sucky deal, if you ask me.
I'm interested in Libertarian ideas, at least in an intellectual sense. I find it hard to believe that the path toward de-regulation can be taken without inviting massive corruption -- and yes, I mean worse than our current government. My question is:
Assuming that the libertarian party supports de-regulation when properly implemented, how exactly would a well-prepared California libertarian voter have been able to figure out to vote "no" to the specific energy de-regulation plan that wound up creating an opportunity for us to be robbed of $35 billion? How could we have known we were being set up for a swindle?
Nightfreeze wasn't the first one to pull off something like this. Back in the early days post-beta, there was a guy (something like Morbo) who was promising 100% returns on investments after two weeks.
He first got people to make little "pilot" investments of 1 million isk, and paid them back on time. Meanwhile he was collecting new investments.
Doesn't take long to see where this is going, does it? But for some reason, skeptics were in the minority. Despite warnings of a Ponzi scheme, more than half the people in my corporation started giving this guy money, to a total of about 1/2 billion isk. They never got a dime.
I wouldn't be suprised to find that all those who did get paid were shills. The guy kept posting apologies and excuses on the various player forums, and managed to keep convincing people to give him money, and keep his original investors believing they would get paid.
I guess people thought that because it was a game, that no one would rip them off. But think about it, it's a game designed with PIRACY as one of the coolest ways to make money.
But people didn't or couldn't see that the whole entire operation took place completely within the game mechanics and environment. No cheats or exploits were used. If anything "illegal" happened, then it's only within the game world, which is designed to encourage "illegal" behavior anyway.
I'm sure Morbo had a great time. I imagined someone doing this in preparation for a term paper on Charles Ponzi or the gullibility of the average investor, etc. My hat's off to him, wherever he is.
COmpanies that pay-per-click use sophisticated analysis
I once worked in this industry. The anything remotely like "sophisticated analysis" is not much more than people paid to make up reasons to strip out click-sources when the customer complains that their click rates are too high.
At the company I worked for, we all *believed* we had automagic software that detected non-human response patterns, and our marketing touted that capability. Even the *engineers who wrote the analysis engine* believed it was in there (until some of us proved it was not possible).
It turns out that way back in the dawn of time, someone in marketing misinterpreted a position piece that said we *should develop* the capability. It was even in the spec. Just not in the product.
After years of saying "we detect blah blah blah", our marketing VP decided that a human review of he results was sufficient to support the claim.
THIS IS A PROBLEM. You can claim it doesn't exist till the cows come home, but it will still be there.
Yes, but it's not MY PROBLEM. My problem was spam. SPEWS make spam go bye bye. No more problem.
Long live SPEWS!
I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that no one has asked the obvious question:
Will it cause your tomato sandwich to automatically eject if the pump gets caught in your trouser leg?
Let me get this straight... You want to know the names of the current unoriginal hacks in the SF industry? That's easy. Just go pick out any book that's Book (n) of (2^(n-1)) and have at.
I was raised on SF, and I've never understood the fascination with Anthony or Heinlein. Rubbish! Forced dialog, 2-dimensional characters, predictable and anti-climactic plotlines. And let's not forget in Heinlein's case, "Sexual Fantasy of the Month".
And throw Orson Scott Card in there for good measure. And Brin, Moorcock, Eddings, Jordan, McCaffrey. Ugh.
Thank jeebus for Williams, Gibson, Sterling, Lem, LeGuin, Zelazny, Delany, Miller, Varley, Cherryh, Haldeman, Powers, and others, who made SF in the last three decades bearable.
Here's my recommendation list: Anything by Linda Nagata, Alastair Reynolds, Ian Banks. Also (not new, but new to me) _In_The_Mother's_Land_ by Elisabeth Vonarburg.
And the next time you find yourself reaching for "book four" of a series, apply a small dose of ball-peen hammer to the middle of your forehead, then buy a book by someone you've never heard of. Chances are it will be better.
I have a memory, mostly just an image, of a man sitting at my grandmother's house, with his elbow sticking out of a a window. The window as it exists in the actual house doesn't open.
I figured out from other cues that this memory is of my grandmother's house being built (in November, 1966). I was born in May, 1965. My mother tells me that we did indeed visit my grandmother while her house was being built, so I'm pretty sure this memory is accurate.
I have lots of memories like these, but unfortunately no others with enough clues in them to pinpoint my age.
gzblorkin is a word if I use it as one and if you know what I mean when I use it.
As far as I can tell, language serves two purposes. Its primary purpose is as a tool for effective communication. In this sense, any use of language is "correct" if the idea is communicated in the manner intended. Alot. A lot. WGAF?
The secondary purpose is for people with corncobs up their a**es (like academics and the guy who started this subthread) to berate each other and/or feel superior to each other without adding anything of value to the (world|conversation).
Either that or the fascist was trolling for a Godwin. In which case I've indulged.
bitusmeus
What they really need to do to convince the skeptics is to leave something behind that *IS* visible from the earth. Like a big Nike swoosh.
I bet Nike would pay $10 to $20 billion for it. If they wouldn't, Pepsi would. That oughta cover R&D on some kind of lightweight reflective (or non-reflective...?) deployable device big enough to be visible with binoculars.
Or, a space-based solar-powered laser that could project an image on the dark parts of the moon during new moon phases-- but that would mean going to a lagrange point instead of the moon itself maybe. I dunno.
Anyway, it would be hella cool.
Slashdot Mirror
"More specifically, since the poor benefit more in comparison to their tax burden from government programs funded by this money"
I dispute this. While the poor appear to use the services of government the most, it's my opinion that the wealthy benefit the most from it. If someone in East Oakland's house gets robbed, they generally won't lose near as much as someone in the Claremont or Oakland Hills districts.
Similarly, when MacArthur (runs through some of the poorest Oakland neighborhoods) was torn up for repaving a few years back, the road was left rough and unfinished for six months, while Lincoln Avenue in Piedmont/Oakland Hills was completed start-to-finish in about a month.
The poor paying too much, and are getting a pretty sucky deal, if you ask me.
I'm interested in Libertarian ideas, at least in an intellectual sense. I find it hard to believe that the path toward de-regulation can be taken without inviting massive corruption -- and yes, I mean worse than our current government. My question is:
Assuming that the libertarian party supports de-regulation when properly implemented, how exactly would a well-prepared California libertarian voter have been able to figure out to vote "no" to the specific energy de-regulation plan that wound up creating an opportunity for us to be robbed of $35 billion? How could we have known we were being set up for a swindle?
He first got people to make little "pilot" investments of 1 million isk, and paid them back on time. Meanwhile he was collecting new investments.
Doesn't take long to see where this is going, does it? But for some reason, skeptics were in the minority. Despite warnings of a Ponzi scheme, more than half the people in my corporation started giving this guy money, to a total of about 1/2 billion isk. They never got a dime.
I wouldn't be suprised to find that all those who did get paid were shills. The guy kept posting apologies and excuses on the various player forums, and managed to keep convincing people to give him money, and keep his original investors believing they would get paid.
I guess people thought that because it was a game, that no one would rip them off. But think about it, it's a game designed with PIRACY as one of the coolest ways to make money.
But people didn't or couldn't see that the whole entire operation took place completely within the game mechanics and environment. No cheats or exploits were used. If anything "illegal" happened, then it's only within the game world, which is designed to encourage "illegal" behavior anyway.
I'm sure Morbo had a great time. I imagined someone doing this in preparation for a term paper on Charles Ponzi or the gullibility of the average investor, etc. My hat's off to him, wherever he is.
COmpanies that pay-per-click use sophisticated analysis
I once worked in this industry. The anything remotely like "sophisticated analysis" is not much more than people paid to make up reasons to strip out click-sources when the customer complains that their click rates are too high. At the company I worked for, we all *believed* we had automagic software that detected non-human response patterns, and our marketing touted that capability. Even the *engineers who wrote the analysis engine* believed it was in there (until some of us proved it was not possible). It turns out that way back in the dawn of time, someone in marketing misinterpreted a position piece that said we *should develop* the capability. It was even in the spec. Just not in the product. After years of saying "we detect blah blah blah", our marketing VP decided that a human review of he results was sufficient to support the claim.
46 meters a record for human elevation? What about lawn chair balloon guy, who (allegedly) made 16,000 feet?
THIS IS A PROBLEM. You can claim it doesn't exist till the cows come home, but it will still be there. Yes, but it's not MY PROBLEM. My problem was spam. SPEWS make spam go bye bye. No more problem. Long live SPEWS!
I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that no one has asked the obvious question: Will it cause your tomato sandwich to automatically eject if the pump gets caught in your trouser leg?
Let me get this straight... You want to know the names of the current unoriginal hacks in the SF industry? That's easy. Just go pick out any book that's Book (n) of (2^(n-1)) and have at. I was raised on SF, and I've never understood the fascination with Anthony or Heinlein. Rubbish! Forced dialog, 2-dimensional characters, predictable and anti-climactic plotlines. And let's not forget in Heinlein's case, "Sexual Fantasy of the Month". And throw Orson Scott Card in there for good measure. And Brin, Moorcock, Eddings, Jordan, McCaffrey. Ugh. Thank jeebus for Williams, Gibson, Sterling, Lem, LeGuin, Zelazny, Delany, Miller, Varley, Cherryh, Haldeman, Powers, and others, who made SF in the last three decades bearable. Here's my recommendation list: Anything by Linda Nagata, Alastair Reynolds, Ian Banks. Also (not new, but new to me) _In_The_Mother's_Land_ by Elisabeth Vonarburg. And the next time you find yourself reaching for "book four" of a series, apply a small dose of ball-peen hammer to the middle of your forehead, then buy a book by someone you've never heard of. Chances are it will be better.
I have a memory, mostly just an image, of a man sitting at my grandmother's house, with his elbow sticking out of a a window. The window as it exists in the actual house doesn't open. I figured out from other cues that this memory is of my grandmother's house being built (in November, 1966). I was born in May, 1965. My mother tells me that we did indeed visit my grandmother while her house was being built, so I'm pretty sure this memory is accurate. I have lots of memories like these, but unfortunately no others with enough clues in them to pinpoint my age.
gzblorkin is a word if I use it as one and if you know what I mean when I use it. As far as I can tell, language serves two purposes. Its primary purpose is as a tool for effective communication. In this sense, any use of language is "correct" if the idea is communicated in the manner intended. Alot. A lot. WGAF? The secondary purpose is for people with corncobs up their a**es (like academics and the guy who started this subthread) to berate each other and/or feel superior to each other without adding anything of value to the (world|conversation). Either that or the fascist was trolling for a Godwin. In which case I've indulged. bitusmeus
What they really need to do to convince the skeptics is to leave something behind that *IS* visible from the earth. Like a big Nike swoosh. I bet Nike would pay $10 to $20 billion for it. If they wouldn't, Pepsi would. That oughta cover R&D on some kind of lightweight reflective (or non-reflective...?) deployable device big enough to be visible with binoculars. Or, a space-based solar-powered laser that could project an image on the dark parts of the moon during new moon phases-- but that would mean going to a lagrange point instead of the moon itself maybe. I dunno. Anyway, it would be hella cool.