Righ, because nobody needs to pay taxes, food, gasoline etc
For the rich - ie, the people whose wealth makes up the vast, vast majority of available credit - those expenses are tiny fractions of their overall wealth. The people whose everyday expenses make up a majority of their income are exactly those that get screwed by deflationary currencies because they can't afford to sit on appreciating currency.
That correlates exactly with what I was saying - deflationary currencies are good for people with enough spare money to buy currency and let it sit in their bank account appreciating. With people who spend the majority of their income, or will make any purchase with credit (including student loans, mortgages, etc) they're bad.
It doesn't eliminate the need. People who want to profit, will still need to invest.
Yes, it does - if you want to profit, all you need to do is hang on to your money while it's value increases. You're correct that investment could potentially reap greater profit than the base rate of deflation (with significantly more risk).
Oh yeah - I'm not saying a deflationary currency is the only way of generating that particular outcome, just that it will.
Do note, however, that the immediate cause (lack of readily available credit) is the same in both cases. However, during the "credit crunch", it was an isolated event, caused by a sudden lack of investment due to increased risk. As such, it is/was a temporary situation, until investor confidence could be restored. During the scenario I outlined, it's not temporary, but a permanent state of affairs.
Such a currency would put a break at the constant need to invest in stocks and other stuff
Yes, it would. Investing in stocks and "other stuff" is, likewise, a good thing. Investments, really, are a form of loan. You're giving someone money with the expectation that, if the enterprise they're spending your money on succeeds, you'll receive your initial investment back, plus some. All commercial loans are backed by investments in "stocks and other sutff" - your mortgage, your small business loan, venture capital, everything. The interest you get on your savings account? That's made by the bank investing on your behalf.
If you disincentivize investing, all that grinds to a halt. Nobody can buy a house, because there's no money in mortgages - just stick it in the bank, and either you won't lose money (inflation-neutral) or you'll become richer (deflationary). Nobody who isn't already rich can start a business, or take on tertiary education, because nobody will loan them money.
You'll end up with a starkly divided society: the wealthy class, who can afford new houses, and cars, and to start new businesses, and the underclass who cannot afford a house or a car because they cannot get a decent job because they cannot afford an education because everybody's got their money locked up in their bank vaults appreciating instead of out backing student loans, small business loans and mortgages.
Yep. That's a feature of any currency without inflation, and why inflation is actually a good thing. It discourages hoarding. Neutral or deflationary currencies are only good for the people who already have a lot of them.
Firstly, genetics isn't the only form of hereditary. Cultural values are transmitted from parents to children - including attitudes to women. Secondly, the GP was talking about Muslims, which is a religious group, not a racial group.
You didn't get this email from your hosting company. You got it from the company managing your servers. The fact that it's the same company is largely irrelevant.
If the server management company isn't flexible enough to meet your needs, do it yourself. You keep track of the patches, you decide when they're ready for release, you release them, you test them. If you don't have the skills for that, or the money to hire someone with the skills, then get another company to do it. If you're using a dedicated server, there's nothing stopping you giving someone else the access to manage and patch it.
If you yourself don't have root/Administrator access, then you don't have a server; you have access to a server. Fork out a little bit extra, and get a dedicated box that you control.
It's not really unreasonable for them to want a buffer zone they control access to around their main populated region.
And then, it's not unreasonable for them to want to build settlements there. After all they're growing, and there's all that land just sitting there. Hey wait, now there's no buffer zone! Oh well, it's not unreasonable for them to want a buffer zone. Repeat as needed.
The Slashdot headline looks to be a bit exaggerated. This sounds like they're just auto-patching certain versions of some software. They're not "detecting vulnerabilities", they're detecting your software version. Any pure-play hosting services (ie: a dedicated wordpress host) have been doing this for ages.
Remember even WINDOWS gaming is too hard for a lot of people, with DX updates, various runtimes, licensing, etc,etc.. thus, IMHO, console sales
I just really don't see this to be the case. In my experience, console sales are driven by comfy chairs, large screens and, lately, exclusive titles. Previous to this they were also somewhat drive by cost (a console which worked with your existing TV was cheaper than a new computer plus monitor) but those prices have converged a lot lately.
I run GW2 on my Linux machine, via PlayOnLinux. My machines got a decent bit of oompf, but it's not tricked out like many gamer boxes, and there's often an annoying bugbear or two, especially with large patches.
Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
This is true
many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves
So is this.
It's almost like the founding fathers were a disparate group of people, each with their own opinions and perspectives, and trying to paint the entire group as either ruthless slavers or crusading abolitionists is painting with too wide a brush.
Slashdot's traditionally been antagonistic towards publishers in general - RIAA, MPAA, BSA, even some game developers (EA). Kickstarter is a direct-to-creator funding method that cuts out the publisher. If it becomes a mainstream method of funding, it could spell the beginning of the end for traditional publishers. Because the money's all given up-front, copyright isn't as important for Kickstarted projects as it is for projects whose sole income stream is post-development.
It might be a fine line, but a lot of the legislation around copyright isn't anywhere near the line, so it doesn't matter how fine it is. Stuff like extending copyrights to death of author plus 100 years - how much incentive is that providing for content creation? How much incentive is it when somebody's copyrights never expire, and this they can live of a single popular piece of work without ever creating another one?
Exactly. Which is the problem. Apple's control of a walled garden gives them powers that are usually reserved to the state (the ability to restrict trade) without the the obligation to obey due process to which the state is bound. It's all power, no responsibility.
You can't be "friends" with "Pages" (that is, companies) on Facebook. All you can to is "like" them. This means that some of their updates will appear in your feeds. Which is determined algorithmically. Your posts don't automatically show up in your friends feeds either; that's determined by the same algorithm. If you want to guarantee they get something, send them a message.
All this complaining is from companies who want to be able to guarantee that when they push some inane crap out there, that it appears on all the feeds of all the people who've "liked" them. Yeah, technically the same's true about people and their statuses, but they dont' really give a crap. If a friend wants to see all your statuses, they can just visit your page and read em. This is all about corporations wanting another avenue to shove crap in front of your eyes.
Or the anime Angelic Layer - in fact, in that one, the mind-controlled robots were created to fund research into medical technology, as suggested in the summary.
You may not be taking into account that each company will send at least one posting a day but most of them are just basic updates to keep the company name fresh in their heads. If (in this example) you have 1M followers and you send just one update per day $3000x30 = $90,000/month or $1,095,000 a year just to send one message a day to people who have already shown interest in what ever you happen to be babbling about.
If Facebook is saving me from that sort of spam, I'm happy for them to charge however much they want. They're also protecting brands who would otherwise do that - if I get that sort of spammy crap every day, then I'm going to unlike them so I don't have to put up with it - same as companies who spam via email.
This is precisely a bait and switch. You promise a free service, refuse to offer the free service and then demand money for the exact same functionality that was promised for free.
So what, no companies are allowed to change their prices, ever, or it's considered to be a bait-and-switch? That's just ridiculous. Bait-and-switch is not what you describe, its as the GP said: "baiting" someone with an ad for a cheap project, then claiming the advertised product is no longer available, and conning them into going with a more expensive one when they arrive in the store.
And no, Facebook never promised that companies could spam everybody who "liked" them with messages they were guaranteed to see.
Slashdot Mirror
Righ, because nobody needs to pay taxes, food, gasoline etc
For the rich - ie, the people whose wealth makes up the vast, vast majority of available credit - those expenses are tiny fractions of their overall wealth. The people whose everyday expenses make up a majority of their income are exactly those that get screwed by deflationary currencies because they can't afford to sit on appreciating currency.
That correlates exactly with what I was saying - deflationary currencies are good for people with enough spare money to buy currency and let it sit in their bank account appreciating. With people who spend the majority of their income, or will make any purchase with credit (including student loans, mortgages, etc) they're bad.
Probably lumped in with rogue biotech
It doesn't eliminate the need. People who want to profit, will still need to invest.
Yes, it does - if you want to profit, all you need to do is hang on to your money while it's value increases. You're correct that investment could potentially reap greater profit than the base rate of deflation (with significantly more risk).
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
Oh yeah - I'm not saying a deflationary currency is the only way of generating that particular outcome, just that it will.
Do note, however, that the immediate cause (lack of readily available credit) is the same in both cases. However, during the "credit crunch", it was an isolated event, caused by a sudden lack of investment due to increased risk. As such, it is/was a temporary situation, until investor confidence could be restored. During the scenario I outlined, it's not temporary, but a permanent state of affairs.
Such a currency would put a break at the constant need to invest in stocks and other stuff
Yes, it would. Investing in stocks and "other stuff" is, likewise, a good thing. Investments, really, are a form of loan. You're giving someone money with the expectation that, if the enterprise they're spending your money on succeeds, you'll receive your initial investment back, plus some. All commercial loans are backed by investments in "stocks and other sutff" - your mortgage, your small business loan, venture capital, everything. The interest you get on your savings account? That's made by the bank investing on your behalf.
If you disincentivize investing, all that grinds to a halt. Nobody can buy a house, because there's no money in mortgages - just stick it in the bank, and either you won't lose money (inflation-neutral) or you'll become richer (deflationary). Nobody who isn't already rich can start a business, or take on tertiary education, because nobody will loan them money.
You'll end up with a starkly divided society: the wealthy class, who can afford new houses, and cars, and to start new businesses, and the underclass who cannot afford a house or a car because they cannot get a decent job because they cannot afford an education because everybody's got their money locked up in their bank vaults appreciating instead of out backing student loans, small business loans and mortgages.
You see, I just showed you that this deflationary currency is good for even people who only have few of them.
What you posted has nothing to do with what I posted, and you showed nothing. Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.
Yep. That's a feature of any currency without inflation, and why inflation is actually a good thing. It discourages hoarding. Neutral or deflationary currencies are only good for the people who already have a lot of them.
The GP clearly does not think religion is genetically transmitted. he was accusing the GPP of thinking that religion is genetically transmitted.
Which is pretty stupid, since the GP said nothing about genetics.
Firstly, genetics isn't the only form of hereditary. Cultural values are transmitted from parents to children - including attitudes to women. Secondly, the GP was talking about Muslims, which is a religious group, not a racial group.
So, yeah, you're stupid on two counts.
You didn't get this email from your hosting company. You got it from the company managing your servers. The fact that it's the same company is largely irrelevant.
If the server management company isn't flexible enough to meet your needs, do it yourself. You keep track of the patches, you decide when they're ready for release, you release them, you test them. If you don't have the skills for that, or the money to hire someone with the skills, then get another company to do it. If you're using a dedicated server, there's nothing stopping you giving someone else the access to manage and patch it.
If you yourself don't have root/Administrator access, then you don't have a server; you have access to a server. Fork out a little bit extra, and get a dedicated box that you control.
It's not really unreasonable for them to want a buffer zone they control access to around their main populated region.
And then, it's not unreasonable for them to want to build settlements there. After all they're growing, and there's all that land just sitting there. Hey wait, now there's no buffer zone! Oh well, it's not unreasonable for them to want a buffer zone. Repeat as needed.
The Slashdot headline looks to be a bit exaggerated. This sounds like they're just auto-patching certain versions of some software. They're not "detecting vulnerabilities", they're detecting your software version. Any pure-play hosting services (ie: a dedicated wordpress host) have been doing this for ages.
Remember even WINDOWS gaming is too hard for a lot of people, with DX updates, various runtimes, licensing, etc,etc .. thus, IMHO, console sales
I just really don't see this to be the case. In my experience, console sales are driven by comfy chairs, large screens and, lately, exclusive titles. Previous to this they were also somewhat drive by cost (a console which worked with your existing TV was cheaper than a new computer plus monitor) but those prices have converged a lot lately.
I run GW2 on my Linux machine, via PlayOnLinux. My machines got a decent bit of oompf, but it's not tricked out like many gamer boxes, and there's often an annoying bugbear or two, especially with large patches.
Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
This is true
many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves
So is this.
It's almost like the founding fathers were a disparate group of people, each with their own opinions and perspectives, and trying to paint the entire group as either ruthless slavers or crusading abolitionists is painting with too wide a brush.
(and threatened her with explosion)
Damn, now that's a discipline policy!
Slashdot's traditionally been antagonistic towards publishers in general - RIAA, MPAA, BSA, even some game developers (EA). Kickstarter is a direct-to-creator funding method that cuts out the publisher. If it becomes a mainstream method of funding, it could spell the beginning of the end for traditional publishers. Because the money's all given up-front, copyright isn't as important for Kickstarted projects as it is for projects whose sole income stream is post-development.
It might be a fine line, but a lot of the legislation around copyright isn't anywhere near the line, so it doesn't matter how fine it is. Stuff like extending copyrights to death of author plus 100 years - how much incentive is that providing for content creation? How much incentive is it when somebody's copyrights never expire, and this they can live of a single popular piece of work without ever creating another one?
Exactly. Which is the problem. Apple's control of a walled garden gives them powers that are usually reserved to the state (the ability to restrict trade) without the the obligation to obey due process to which the state is bound. It's all power, no responsibility.
You can't be "friends" with "Pages" (that is, companies) on Facebook. All you can to is "like" them. This means that some of their updates will appear in your feeds. Which is determined algorithmically. Your posts don't automatically show up in your friends feeds either; that's determined by the same algorithm. If you want to guarantee they get something, send them a message.
All this complaining is from companies who want to be able to guarantee that when they push some inane crap out there, that it appears on all the feeds of all the people who've "liked" them. Yeah, technically the same's true about people and their statuses, but they dont' really give a crap. If a friend wants to see all your statuses, they can just visit your page and read em. This is all about corporations wanting another avenue to shove crap in front of your eyes.
Or the anime Angelic Layer - in fact, in that one, the mind-controlled robots were created to fund research into medical technology, as suggested in the summary.
You may not be taking into account that each company will send at least one posting a day but most of them are just basic updates to keep the company name fresh in their heads. If (in this example) you have 1M followers and you send just one update per day $3000x30 = $90,000/month or $1,095,000 a year just to send one message a day to people who have already shown interest in what ever you happen to be babbling about.
If Facebook is saving me from that sort of spam, I'm happy for them to charge however much they want. They're also protecting brands who would otherwise do that - if I get that sort of spammy crap every day, then I'm going to unlike them so I don't have to put up with it - same as companies who spam via email.
This is precisely a bait and switch. You promise a free service, refuse to offer the free service and then demand money for the exact same functionality that was promised for free.
So what, no companies are allowed to change their prices, ever, or it's considered to be a bait-and-switch? That's just ridiculous. Bait-and-switch is not what you describe, its as the GP said: "baiting" someone with an ad for a cheap project, then claiming the advertised product is no longer available, and conning them into going with a more expensive one when they arrive in the store.
And no, Facebook never promised that companies could spam everybody who "liked" them with messages they were guaranteed to see.