She doesn't like cuddling or romance. If she want to get laid she just tells me.
And what's the problem exactly?
Finding a guy willing to fuck her? [RIMSHOT] Thanks, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.
Just kidding; I wasn't complaining. Here's the kicker. The idea of an engagement ring and a big fancy wedding repulsed my wife as much as it did me. She felt that money should go into a down payment on a house (it did). We got married at a drive through in Vegas, basically because it is the most convenient method. Where we live you have to get a blood test, wait a week, go to the registrar in person and apply for a license which they later send you. Then you have to schedule a ceremony. Since we are aetheists we would prefer a JoP. It takes two weeks and three days off from work. Not convenient. In Vegas you can drive straight from the airport to the registrar of marriages (open 24 hours) show them your driver's license and get a marriage certificate in five minutes. Then you can drive stright to any number of drive through "chapels" tell them you want a secular ceremony and be married in less than half an hour. No muss no fuss. Every boy's dream.
Ummh... that is why I said my situation was the inverse of the parent. HIs wife wants him when she is ovulating because she wants to breed. I want my wife when she is menstruating because she can't breed. If you had followed my link that would be obvious.
Why didn't you attack me for the unintentional split infinitive instead? You are one lame grammar nazi. Not that I give a shit about split infinitives. Prescriptive grammar is stupid.
You'd better be careful saying things like this around here, some slashbot will crop up and tell you that for lots of people on this thing, it isn't their first language.
That part wasn't meant as a criticism. I honestly doubted a native English speaker (at least an American) could miss the point. Regardless of what language the AC originally spoke, his offense was not poor command of American English idioms and rhetoric. His offense was leveraging that lack of facility into being a pedantic dick. Not speaking English natively natively is not a flaw. Being a jerk in any language is.
I sure do. It is called a sense of humor. That was a humerous rhetorical device. Hard to believe you have never heard or read a purposeful comedic double negative before. Is english not your first language?
You bother her because you know you can't get any. And when you can't get any, you feel you must have it. Relax, this is normal.
If that were the case I'd be after her all the time. More like I bother her because she is all bloated and juicy and I can tell she won't get pregnant.
What we're talking about is the situation where SHE is actively trying to get you to hump her. Pay attention to the signals she's sending. e.g. Nicely dressed, tasty dinner, "cuddling time", etc. Women express themselves more emotionally than physically, so if it seems like she's trying to be romantic, there's probably a reason.
Yeah, that ain't gonna happen. She doesn't like cuddling or romance. If she want to get laid she just tells me.
Per my comment below, my wife and I have the inverse relationship. And I always know her schedule because if I find myself humping her leg, she is probably menstruating.
According to my wife I have a genetic defect which causes me to be more attracted to her when she is menstruating. This has obvious disadvantages in that she is both unlikely to get pregnant and unlikely to not kick my ass when fondled in that state. Good thing I don't want kids, or a genetic legacy.
Think about it. If the total number of dollars remained constant, a dollar today would be *more* valuable than in the past since there are now more people and more things to buy than ever before.
Every time the fed prints more money than is destroyed, they are deliberately devaluing the money in your pocket.
"Printing money" is really a metaphor in the context of Federal debt service. The Fed doesn't literally print new money, it buys back Treasury bonds, increasing the money supply. They call this monetizing the debt. Actually, the Federal government is the major holder of its own debt in the various trust funds (Social Security, Medicare, Highway etc).
In reality the Treasury usually finances debt service by issuing more debt. However, this can have a deflationary impact on bond prices, driving up yields and making debt service more expensive. So the Federal Reserve may choose to monetize some debt as well to reduce the cost of debt service for the treasury. This is of course a gross oversimplification. The Fed has to consider all sorts of factors (income growth and the velocity of money for instance) before taking such steps. Otherwise they would subvert their typical goal of promoting price stability.
The other mechanism you mention is the Quantity Theory of Money, first proposed by Copernicus and most recently championed by Milton Friedman. Basically it says that there is a positive relationship between prices and the quantity of money. The Friedman formula is M * V = P * Q where M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money (frequency with which a unit is spent in a year), P is price level and Q is the real value of expenditures. This is all very elegant on paper. However, empirically it proves a lot more complicated. Even before Friedman, Keynes noted that increases in the money supply tend to reduce the velocity of money and hence its inflationary effect. And It turns out the the private influence on the money supply is more volatile and important that that of central banks. They increase and decrease M much more than the central bank, and in response to future investment prospects. The Fed can only try to moderate this.
Convertible bonds aren't a win for existing stockholders, however, who find their stake diluted by the new issuance. To oversimplify, it would be like the US government printing money to pay debts.
They are a win for existing stockholders if the officers use the cash to help engineer a comeback which quintuples the price of the stock, as was the case at Apple. One of the things Apple did with that money was buy NeXT.
Disappointing that Fred Anderson is at the center of this. Anderson did a bang up job as CFO. He created the company's large cash reserves by liquidating unnecessary capital investments (plant), issuing a convertible debenture and selling some of their valuable ARM holdings. Then he managed the investment of those funds astutely enough to make the conversion of those outstanding notes to common stock a huge win for both the company and creditors. That 1999 conversion alone eliminated about two thirds of Apple's long term debt (conversely that means the issue had assumed most of Apple's debt). Really, this guy did an outstanding job. Apple can thank him for their sound financials.
Now it seems the financial genius is another self-serving, crooked corporate scumbag.
Well, this is either a sophomoric insult ("anybody who doesn't agree with me must be ignorant") or you're taking a wild guess that happens to be wrong (as it happens I took both micro and macro from Shlomo Maitel at MIT's Sloan School in the early 80s). Either way, going ad hominem in line 1 is not a promising way to begin an argument. I mean, unless you're arguing with someone like your girlfriend who gives a shit whether you like and respect her or not.
Interesting advice coming from someone who started his reply, "Christ, that's simplistic to the point of idiocy." At any rate, neither your insult nor my observation about your economic understanding is ad hominem fallacy because they don't for the basis of an argument against the opponent's conclusion.
Maybe you should have studied with Michael Piore instead Maitel. Piore is excellent and underrated, which is perhaps why he teaches in the Political Science department at MIT instead of remediating Sloan's second rate product.
Missing the forest for the trees, I think. My point is that if your primary working definition of "government-enforced monopoly" is just that it's a situation where government enforces restrictions on a buyer's options with respect to from whom he buys, why then even a legal contract becomes a "government-enforced monopoly."
No, it is you who is missing the big picture. Contract law does not create monopolies any more than ringing up your purchase at the register does. Contracts are merely part of the process of exchange. The fact that they are legally enforceable does not make them monopolistic. The market which led to the contract may or may not be monopolistic and that monopoly may have derived from several causes. Also, I said government granted monopoly, not "enforced" as you disingenuously misquoted. Those are completely different things. Even if we assumed your premise of contracts being monopolistic were valid (which it isn't), they would only be enforced, not granted by the government.
You go on ad nauseam arguing against a lot things I never said. You claim I came out against patents, which I didn't. You claim I think all markets are naturally perfectly competitive and informed (with your supermarket question), which I don't. All I said was that for you to say drug patents allow the free market to set prices and distribute resources is contrary to the facts. In the US patents purposely exist to limit competition so innovators will reap increased front end economic benefit. It is explicit in our constitution. They do this by granting a temporary monopoly. They also, as you say, ensure that the invention will not be held proprietary in perpetuity in cases where that is possible (although that is not ensconsed in our constitution). I never said otherwise. That they are not always perfectly successful at these purposes does not change the mechanism or intention. Likewise, the fact that there are many types of markets with varying degrees of competition and information is not relevant to this basic and true observation. Finally, I never said government granted monoploies were inherently bad. In fact, I said quite the opposite, that they are often necessary. You are arguing almost entirely with a straw man. All I said was that government granted monopolies were not competitive, which is by definition correct.
Christ, that's simplistic to the point of idiocy. Look, a contract between a builder and a property owner is a "government granted monopoly" in your terms. Once the contract is signed, the property owner can't change his mind and buy his house from any other builder. Heavens, the builder has a monopoly! Eek! Where's the property owner's choice?
Wow. Clearly you have never taken any economics. Contracts have nothing to do with market structure, monopolistic, competitive or otherwise. A market is a mechanism for distributing information and setting prices between buyers and sellers so they can voluntarily exchange goods and services. A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between those parties. No relationship.
Now let's look at those eeeeeevil medicine patents. Where is society's choice? Why, in the same place. Society has the choice about whether to buy, say, Johnson and Johnson's baby powder, providing wealth to J and J that they'll use in their research division to try to create new drugs. And once the drug is created, society has the choice of whether or not to buy it. After all, they got along for umpty thousand years before the drug existed -- clearly they can continue getting along without it, if they choose.
Umhh... no. In a competitive market the consumer has the ability to buy the same commodity or service from multiple vendors. Having the choice of buying from one vendor or going without is by definition monopoly. When the drug patent runs out and other vendors enter the market it becomes competitive. One consequence of this is more efficient pricing.
I'd also just like to point out the massive logical inconsistency between thinking the "government created monopoly" that is a system of patents is Bad, but an even more coercive government created monopoly that is government funding and direction of drug research is Good.
In the first place I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that your jingoistic cry of "free markets" as a defense of the patent system, which is by design monopolistic, was laughably erroneous. It is now obvious that you have no idea what a market is. Furthermore government funding of research is not inherently monopolistic. But since you mentioned it, there is nothing logically inconsistent in your straw man. There is such a thing as a natural monopoly and many argue that they function better with government complicity and tight regulation. That does not mean that government granted monopolies are productive in all, or even most markets.
That would have been brilliant if his henchmen hadn't been killing farmers at the same time, thus restricting the country's ability to produce its own grain.
Actually, only a few farmers were killed in the "land reform," although many were assaulted. A lot more farm workers were killed, which is sad and ironic since they were the ones land reform was theoretically supposed to benefit. Of course, the farm invasions had nothing to do with real land reform, which Zimbabwe sorely needed. They had everything to do with ZANU-PF politics.
Also, I think you should be clear that "farmers" means white commercial farm owners. In other words the Rhodesian colonial elites.
It can't come from the free choice of individuals, because he's just got done saying that leaving it up to the free choice of the market ends up being Evil
Since when are government granted monopolies "the free choice of the market?"
This librarian can program, although it was never a passion. Her father, OTOH is the famous engineer/programmer and infamous manager Tom West.
She is also a free speech activist who devised a Patriot Act FBI visit alert system for libraries.
I thought the Soviets and American manufacturing won the war...
Seriously insightful. If I had to single out any device as contributing most to the Allied victory in Europe it would be the Soviet T-34 tank. It was as or more capable than anything the Germans could field but ridiculously cheap and easy to manufacture and maintain. On paper later German designs might seem more dangerous, but they never equalled the T-34's mobility and uptime, and were manufactured in tiny numbers by comparison. Likewise, the American equivalent, the M4 Sherman swarmed over Axis forces like fast efficient ants. While no match for the Soviet or even German designs in firepower or survivability (nicknamed Ronsons for the ease with which they incinerated) they were mobile, reliable, cheap and everywhere you looked.
To my knowledge the Soviets did not use radar at all in WWII. The Germans OTOH did. Actually, the Soviets didn't even use active radar for night-fighters in Korea although I believe the eventually fielded a passive radar warning system keyed on the American radar gun-sights.
I have also experienced mildly painful cyanoacrylate burns when using it in combination with cellulose (cotton balls) to plug abscesses in horse hooves (after cleaning disinfecting and drilling of course).
Unless this server to server replication includes some kind of iterative snapshotting you will still need to do backups. The main reason to do backups is not to recover servers or applications but to roll back eroneous changes. In the case of mail, most restores are of accidentally deleted mail. On Exchange this typically (barring a third party solution) also means the whole mailbox. So larger mailboxes mean longer restores. If this "replication does do snapshotting, and better yet allow for brick level restores, then maybe you can remove Exchange from your regular backup system. Otherwise, business as usual.
Much like a physical business letter, SMTP messages have an envelope and a header. The envelope information is used for routing, just like the US mail, while the header information is what you see in your message just like the header on your business letter. So what you see in your client is totally arbitrary and has no effect on delivery.
Luckily you don't have to worry about it, because when the tunnel collapses on you unqualified rescuers, including most firefighters and paramedics, won't be able to get anywhere near you. Believe it or not underwater disaster rescue requires some specialized training and equipment. Actually, you'd be surprised how much special equipment regular rescue requires. My brother in law carries pneumatic pads for lifting cars, a.50 caliber grappling gun and all sorts of electronic and mechanical toys.
Those are fire-fighters, whose job it is to break into your home and douse a fire. A police officer could likewise do so, but not an EMT. Because EMTs and paramedics are not peace officers, and are not empowered to act in the name of the law. Most of the time, they're either employees of private companies (some profit, some NFP) that have a contract with the local municipality, or volunteer civilians.
EMTs and paramedics are very different things. Paramedics are much more highly trained and empowered, and in most municipalities are active firefighters (recall the old 70s TV show "Emergency!") My brother-in-law is a a Paramedic in Columbus Ohio. He still works fires and search and rescue missions too. You would not believe the level of training, both medical and rescue engineering, he has. Belieive me, he is both qualified and empowered to break down a door to save a life. He is literally qualified to rescue you in the event the Holland Tunnel collapses on you. In fact he nearly died in rescue training when they accidentally cut his air off while he was traversing a 45" diameter tube. Luckly he had set the department record for minimal oxygen useage under stress and was able to complete the test without air. I could tell you stories that would whiten your hair.
I appreciate everything you are doing for free speech and civil liberties. But even more I appreciate your dedication to the thankless task of protecting the weak from the strong. That is an under-appreciated endeavor in the US. If nothing else my mom (who was also a holocaust survivor, BTW) taught me to love an underdog. Thanks.
Yeah, I just love the private health care system. Because I have a "preexisting condition" I had to wait a year before I could get coverage from work. Thankfully, where I work is understanding of my condistion (One of the upper-ups daughters have Relasing-remitting like myself) so I get a large consession when it comes to sick leave. Still the sticker shock of 19k a year for my injections is still rough (even with NMSS's help).
I'm surprised they would insure you at all. If I had MS I would move to Canada. It seems like their are much more effective treatments available now than in my mother's day. Glad to hear you've carved out a workable, if financially draining, program.
I'm sorry to hear about your mother, when the doctors where kicking around the words "Primary-progressive" about me I had to be kept under observation on the psych floor. I'm "lucky" enough to still be able to work as a developer since my minds still sharp with writing code. May you NEVER have to go through this yourself and try to make people see that just because our symtoms may not be visable doesn't mean they're not real.
Thanks. It wasn't really depression or even exactly despair that led her to suicide. It was more exhaustion. Forty years of pain, activism and straining to maintain some semblance of a life when she couldn't walk, feed herself or dial a telephone finally got the better of her. She called us up, announced her plan and got a hospice nurse. Then she invited us all down to say goodbye and never looked back. She said that she had led a full life, was on the downside and it was time to check out. I've got nothing but respect for her decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Just kidding; I wasn't complaining. Here's the kicker. The idea of an engagement ring and a big fancy wedding repulsed my wife as much as it did me. She felt that money should go into a down payment on a house (it did). We got married at a drive through in Vegas, basically because it is the most convenient method. Where we live you have to get a blood test, wait a week, go to the registrar in person and apply for a license which they later send you. Then you have to schedule a ceremony. Since we are aetheists we would prefer a JoP. It takes two weeks and three days off from work. Not convenient. In Vegas you can drive straight from the airport to the registrar of marriages (open 24 hours) show them your driver's license and get a marriage certificate in five minutes. Then you can drive stright to any number of drive through "chapels" tell them you want a secular ceremony and be married in less than half an hour. No muss no fuss. Every boy's dream.
Ummh... that is why I said my situation was the inverse of the parent. HIs wife wants him when she is ovulating because she wants to breed. I want my wife when she is menstruating because she can't breed. If you had followed my link that would be obvious.
Why didn't you attack me for the unintentional split infinitive instead? You are one lame grammar nazi. Not that I give a shit about split infinitives. Prescriptive grammar is stupid.
I sure do. It is called a sense of humor. That was a humerous rhetorical device. Hard to believe you have never heard or read a purposeful comedic double negative before. Is english not your first language?
Yeah, that ain't gonna happen. She doesn't like cuddling or romance. If she want to get laid she just tells me.
Per my comment below, my wife and I have the inverse relationship. And I always know her schedule because if I find myself humping her leg, she is probably menstruating.
According to my wife I have a genetic defect which causes me to be more attracted to her when she is menstruating. This has obvious disadvantages in that she is both unlikely to get pregnant and unlikely to not kick my ass when fondled in that state. Good thing I don't want kids, or a genetic legacy.
In reality the Treasury usually finances debt service by issuing more debt. However, this can have a deflationary impact on bond prices, driving up yields and making debt service more expensive. So the Federal Reserve may choose to monetize some debt as well to reduce the cost of debt service for the treasury. This is of course a gross oversimplification. The Fed has to consider all sorts of factors (income growth and the velocity of money for instance) before taking such steps. Otherwise they would subvert their typical goal of promoting price stability.
The other mechanism you mention is the Quantity Theory of Money, first proposed by Copernicus and most recently championed by Milton Friedman. Basically it says that there is a positive relationship between prices and the quantity of money. The Friedman formula is M * V = P * Q where M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money (frequency with which a unit is spent in a year), P is price level and Q is the real value of expenditures. This is all very elegant on paper. However, empirically it proves a lot more complicated. Even before Friedman, Keynes noted that increases in the money supply tend to reduce the velocity of money and hence its inflationary effect. And It turns out the the private influence on the money supply is more volatile and important that that of central banks. They increase and decrease M much more than the central bank, and in response to future investment prospects. The Fed can only try to moderate this.
Convertible bonds aren't a win for existing stockholders, however, who find their stake diluted by the new issuance. To oversimplify, it would be like the US government printing money to pay debts.
They are a win for existing stockholders if the officers use the cash to help engineer a comeback which quintuples the price of the stock, as was the case at Apple. One of the things Apple did with that money was buy NeXT.
Disappointing that Fred Anderson is at the center of this. Anderson did a bang up job as CFO. He created the company's large cash reserves by liquidating unnecessary capital investments (plant), issuing a convertible debenture and selling some of their valuable ARM holdings. Then he managed the investment of those funds astutely enough to make the conversion of those outstanding notes to common stock a huge win for both the company and creditors. That 1999 conversion alone eliminated about two thirds of Apple's long term debt (conversely that means the issue had assumed most of Apple's debt). Really, this guy did an outstanding job. Apple can thank him for their sound financials.
Now it seems the financial genius is another self-serving, crooked corporate scumbag.
Maybe you should have studied with Michael Piore instead Maitel. Piore is excellent and underrated, which is perhaps why he teaches in the Political Science department at MIT instead of remediating Sloan's second rate product.
No, it is you who is missing the big picture. Contract law does not create monopolies any more than ringing up your purchase at the register does. Contracts are merely part of the process of exchange. The fact that they are legally enforceable does not make them monopolistic. The market which led to the contract may or may not be monopolistic and that monopoly may have derived from several causes. Also, I said government granted monopoly, not "enforced" as you disingenuously misquoted. Those are completely different things. Even if we assumed your premise of contracts being monopolistic were valid (which it isn't), they would only be enforced, not granted by the government.
You go on ad nauseam arguing against a lot things I never said. You claim I came out against patents, which I didn't. You claim I think all markets are naturally perfectly competitive and informed (with your supermarket question), which I don't. All I said was that for you to say drug patents allow the free market to set prices and distribute resources is contrary to the facts. In the US patents purposely exist to limit competition so innovators will reap increased front end economic benefit. It is explicit in our constitution. They do this by granting a temporary monopoly. They also, as you say, ensure that the invention will not be held proprietary in perpetuity in cases where that is possible (although that is not ensconsed in our constitution). I never said otherwise. That they are not always perfectly successful at these purposes does not change the mechanism or intention. Likewise, the fact that there are many types of markets with varying degrees of competition and information is not relevant to this basic and true observation. Finally, I never said government granted monoploies were inherently bad. In fact, I said quite the opposite, that they are often necessary. You are arguing almost entirely with a straw man. All I said was that government granted monopolies were not competitive, which is by definition correct.
Umhh... no. In a competitive market the consumer has the ability to buy the same commodity or service from multiple vendors. Having the choice of buying from one vendor or going without is by definition monopoly. When the drug patent runs out and other vendors enter the market it becomes competitive. One consequence of this is more efficient pricing.
In the first place I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that your jingoistic cry of "free markets" as a defense of the patent system, which is by design monopolistic, was laughably erroneous. It is now obvious that you have no idea what a market is. Furthermore government funding of research is not inherently monopolistic. But since you mentioned it, there is nothing logically inconsistent in your straw man. There is such a thing as a natural monopoly and many argue that they function better with government complicity and tight regulation. That does not mean that government granted monopolies are productive in all, or even most markets.
Also, I think you should be clear that "farmers" means white commercial farm owners. In other words the Rhodesian colonial elites.
As usual, Human Rights Watch did an excellent job documenting the crisis and the land issue in general.
This librarian can program, although it was never a passion. Her father, OTOH is the famous engineer/programmer and infamous manager Tom West. She is also a free speech activist who devised a Patriot Act FBI visit alert system for libraries.
To my knowledge the Soviets did not use radar at all in WWII. The Germans OTOH did. Actually, the Soviets didn't even use active radar for night-fighters in Korea although I believe the eventually fielded a passive radar warning system keyed on the American radar gun-sights.
I hate having anything on tape. I prefer capacity optimized disk with offsite replication. Tape sucks.
I have also experienced mildly painful cyanoacrylate burns when using it in combination with cellulose (cotton balls) to plug abscesses in horse hooves (after cleaning disinfecting and drilling of course).
Unless this server to server replication includes some kind of iterative snapshotting you will still need to do backups. The main reason to do backups is not to recover servers or applications but to roll back eroneous changes. In the case of mail, most restores are of accidentally deleted mail. On Exchange this typically (barring a third party solution) also means the whole mailbox. So larger mailboxes mean longer restores. If this "replication does do snapshotting, and better yet allow for brick level restores, then maybe you can remove Exchange from your regular backup system. Otherwise, business as usual.
Much like a physical business letter, SMTP messages have an envelope and a header. The envelope information is used for routing, just like the US mail, while the header information is what you see in your message just like the header on your business letter. So what you see in your client is totally arbitrary and has no effect on delivery.
Luckily you don't have to worry about it, because when the tunnel collapses on you unqualified rescuers, including most firefighters and paramedics, won't be able to get anywhere near you. Believe it or not underwater disaster rescue requires some specialized training and equipment. Actually, you'd be surprised how much special equipment regular rescue requires. My brother in law carries pneumatic pads for lifting cars, a .50 caliber grappling gun and all sorts of electronic and mechanical toys.
I appreciate everything you are doing for free speech and civil liberties. But even more I appreciate your dedication to the thankless task of protecting the weak from the strong. That is an under-appreciated endeavor in the US. If nothing else my mom (who was also a holocaust survivor, BTW) taught me to love an underdog. Thanks.
Thanks. It wasn't really depression or even exactly despair that led her to suicide. It was more exhaustion. Forty years of pain, activism and straining to maintain some semblance of a life when she couldn't walk, feed herself or dial a telephone finally got the better of her. She called us up, announced her plan and got a hospice nurse. Then she invited us all down to say goodbye and never looked back. She said that she had led a full life, was on the downside and it was time to check out. I've got nothing but respect for her decision.