Happiness is guaranteed to no one. The best one can expect out of life is that you can always find some way to respect yourself and say "I did something with my life that I can look myself in the mirror and approve of." That status of self-respect is prerequisite for happiness, but it is by no means a guarantor. There is every chance that you'll just get out there and do your thing and live your life and be alone and lonely right up until the day you die.
Ugh. I believe this is absolutely correct, and also that I would be better off if I didn't believe it. Thanks a lot:)
There's a correlation, but it's not that money leads to success with women; instead charisma and (perceived) social status leads to both money and success with women. Pick-up artists don't bother trying to appear rich; they've just figured out how to signal high status.
I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Unless they're misrepresenting used games as new, I don't see how it's a ripoff. The seller has decided that getting a lower price is worth avoiding the hassle of finding a buyer himself, and the buyer has decided that the small discount is worth getting a used vs new game.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.
I agree, but if others are willing to trade money for convenience, there's no reason to vilify Gamestop for allowing them to do that.
It could be a text encoding mismatch between the web page and database. An app I worked on had a nasty bug like that where if you entered non-ascii characters like copyright or cent symbols, it would be stored in the database with those bogus characters appended, and they would grow exponentially after each edit-save cycle.
after the $7,500 more in taxes that other people, who can't afford this car, will be paying on behalf of the person who can afford it. That's nice. So progressive.
Hey, middle-upper class welfare is a time-honored tradition in the US. I suppose next you'll come up with some crazy talk about getting rid of tax deductions for buying gigantic houses.
But really, the price isn't unreasonable even ignoring the credit. It's still for rich early adopters, but it's far more accessible than the Roadster.
It would work fine if the tax were progressive, but if the assumption is that the burden on a poor person is the same as the burden on a rich person, then "prebating" enough that the poor guy's net tax is 0 means everyone's net tax is 0.
Which is fine. The *average* net tax is zero, so if you use more pollution-generating products you pay more, and if you use less you pay less, and that's true regardless of whether you're rich or poor. This is as it should be, driving a Hummer 50 miles does the same amount of environmental damage regardless of the net worth of the driver. As you note the rich do on balance use more energy so it would end up making the tax burden slightly more progressive, even though that's not the objective.
1) How will you calculate the amount of this "prebate"? Will it be figured "per man woman or child" in line with the article's assumptions? How much per? How will ou even begin to estimate this?
Make a reasonable guess for the first month, then just rebate the actual receipts of the previous month. You might have to adjust slightly for seasonality (more driving in summer so the prebate should be higher), but it's not rocket science.
2) How will you fund the "prebate"? The government is already in debt, and 300 million times anything is a lot of money to loan out while you wait for carbon taxes to roll in.
Even if we're talking $100 per month per person, $30 billion in float for a month is a rounding error in the budget.
Not bullshit. There is not an unlimited supply of health care in either public or private systems. Rationing *always* happens in one form or another.
Of course, there are also many nations with fully private health care that are at least twice as efficient as your own system, which should be ringing bells in your head right about now. The problem isn't about public/private, the problem lies elsewhere.
Absolutely correct. The US healthcare manages to combine the worst of both worlds: the lack of guaranteed coverage, and the lack of competition and pricing signals. I primarily blame the ridiculous concept we have that our employers should pay for our health insurance. This makes no sense whatsoever; it eliminates direct competition and routes people into one-size-fits-all plans, and it means if you lose your job you're doubly screwed. It makes no more sense for my employer to pay for my health insurance than it does for them to pay for my house or car.
Again, what does that actually mean? Should it be illegal to purchase health care outside of the national system? If not, then somebody's going to be making a profit.
I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
And F' to your counter arguments based around MONEY. I don't care, and any sane person that isn't self interested (said 'greedy') would recognize that the man's privacy is much more valuable than all of Apple.
What does that even mean? Jobs should be able to run the company into the ground rather than step down or disclose his health problems? Not that that's what happened here, but this is the sort of overinflated rhetoric that prevents us from having rational discussions about these subjects. No, my privacy is not infinitely valuable, and neither is my life.
I don't remember for sure - you might even be able to deploy to a phone that's physically connected to your Mac without paying anything.
You can, but only if you jailbreak. Build the app in Xcode without code signing, scp it to/Applications on the iPhone, then run ldid (available in Cydia) to give it a fake signature that will allow it to run. Yes, this is very stupid.
That device didn't pretend to allow for complete customizability. It was sold as a device that could and couldn't do certain things.
And the annoyance is that those limitations are entirely imposed by Apple's business and marketing sides. Before the app store, Apple and its fanboys were firmly declaring that there shouldn't be third party apps for the iPhone because it didn't have enough power to run them, and it would lead to widespread viruses and disruption of the phone network, and web apps were just as good anyway. The jailbreakers and unauthorized app developers demonstrated all of those reasons to be utterly bogus. Now we're hearing the same sort of story about how mass chaos will ensue if Apple doesn't have doesn't have unlimited veto power over what apps you can run. I'm not inclined to believe that.
The iPhone is a brilliant piece of engineering, made substantially less useful by Apple's marketing games. Apple may have the right to do that, but let's not pretend it's good for anyone except possibly them.
IMHO the purpose of math in public schools is to make sure that upon release into the real world, students can do things like balance their checkbook, calculate a tip or a discount without a calculator, make change, and understand the concept of compounding interest.
Which doesn't require anything beyond basic arithmetic, with maybe a bit of Algebra I for compound interest exponentials. If that were really the goal, we'd replace mandatory trigonometry with personal finance, with lesson plans such as "credit cards are not free money" and "lottery tickets are a poor investment". (Although since lottery proceeds often fund schools, getting that last one in could be contentious).
Funny, most textbooks don't even have a blurb that big on Creation Science, despite it having a lot to say... [answersingenesis.org]
That is a shame. It would be an excellent resource in political science and marketing classes to show how to lie out of your ass and get millions of people to believe you.
Depends on the teacher. I hated doing trig integrals the normal way so I'd convert them to complex exponentials (being a geek and having read ahead a few hundred pages), and my teacher was perfectly fine with that.
AT&T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.
If true, that's profoundly stupid of AT&T. (Which doesn't mean it's not true). As a classic blunder, "don't get into a PR battle with Apple" ranks only slightly below "never get involved in a land war in Asia".
It's not a conspiracy, it's just a monopolistic provider not responding to customer desires, which is exactly what you'd expect. As far as the iPhone is concerned, AT&T is the phone company.
In person, there's an element of learning your opponents, seeing when they're bluffing, and controlling how much information you release. It's subtle.
That's true in online poker as well. Physical tells are overrated; betting patterns are much more useful.
On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time.
Technically true but practically false. There does exist a "perfect" strategy for poker in the minimax sense, but it's not known what that is because of the huge number of possible hands and betting sequences, and it wouldn't be the optimal strategy against imperfect players anyway. If you're playing against somebody who bluffs a lot, you should call in many cases where the "perfect" strategy would tell you to fold.
If true, that's an excellent argument for legalizing it. The money that US bettors lose to US casinos would cancel out, and the money that they collect from foreign bettors is a win.
You can't. And since they are over seas without regulation you have no way of knowing.
Except that you can record every hand you play and statistically analyze them. If there's any funny business like somebody else having pocket aces when you have pocket kings more often than chance allows, it would eventually be discovered. That's how the recent cheating at UltimateBet was uncovered.
Slashdot Mirror
Happiness is guaranteed to no one. The best one can expect out of life is that you can always find some way to respect yourself and say "I did something with my life that I can look myself in the mirror and approve of." That status of self-respect is prerequisite for happiness, but it is by no means a guarantor. There is every chance that you'll just get out there and do your thing and live your life and be alone and lonely right up until the day you die.
Ugh. I believe this is absolutely correct, and also that I would be better off if I didn't believe it. Thanks a lot :)
There's a correlation, but it's not that money leads to success with women; instead charisma and (perceived) social status leads to both money and success with women. Pick-up artists don't bother trying to appear rich; they've just figured out how to signal high status.
I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Unless they're misrepresenting used games as new, I don't see how it's a ripoff. The seller has decided that getting a lower price is worth avoiding the hassle of finding a buyer himself, and the buyer has decided that the small discount is worth getting a used vs new game.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.
I agree, but if others are willing to trade money for convenience, there's no reason to vilify Gamestop for allowing them to do that.
It could be a text encoding mismatch between the web page and database. An app I worked on had a nasty bug like that where if you entered non-ascii characters like copyright or cent symbols, it would be stored in the database with those bogus characters appended, and they would grow exponentially after each edit-save cycle.
but forcing a taxpayer renting an apartment in Wyoming to help a guy in New Jersey buy a house is ... wrong.
Agreed completely. Of course, any politician who dared question its wisdom would be crucified at the polls.
after the $7,500 more in taxes that other people, who can't afford this car, will be paying on behalf of the person who can afford it. That's nice. So progressive.
Hey, middle-upper class welfare is a time-honored tradition in the US. I suppose next you'll come up with some crazy talk about getting rid of tax deductions for buying gigantic houses.
But really, the price isn't unreasonable even ignoring the credit. It's still for rich early adopters, but it's far more accessible than the Roadster.
It would work fine if the tax were progressive, but if the assumption is that the burden on a poor person is the same as the burden on a rich person, then "prebating" enough that the poor guy's net tax is 0 means everyone's net tax is 0.
Which is fine. The *average* net tax is zero, so if you use more pollution-generating products you pay more, and if you use less you pay less, and that's true regardless of whether you're rich or poor. This is as it should be, driving a Hummer 50 miles does the same amount of environmental damage regardless of the net worth of the driver. As you note the rich do on balance use more energy so it would end up making the tax burden slightly more progressive, even though that's not the objective.
1) How will you calculate the amount of this "prebate"? Will it be figured "per man woman or child" in line with the article's assumptions? How much per? How will ou even begin to estimate this?
Make a reasonable guess for the first month, then just rebate the actual receipts of the previous month. You might have to adjust slightly for seasonality (more driving in summer so the prebate should be higher), but it's not rocket science.
2) How will you fund the "prebate"? The government is already in debt, and 300 million times anything is a lot of money to loan out while you wait for carbon taxes to roll in.
Even if we're talking $100 per month per person, $30 billion in float for a month is a rounding error in the budget.
They told me that if I voted for McCain the government would end up tracking my every move. And they were right!
Bullshit.
Not bullshit. There is not an unlimited supply of health care in either public or private systems. Rationing *always* happens in one form or another.
Of course, there are also many nations with fully private health care that are at least twice as efficient as your own system, which should be ringing bells in your head right about now. The problem isn't about public/private, the problem lies elsewhere.
Absolutely correct. The US healthcare manages to combine the worst of both worlds: the lack of guaranteed coverage, and the lack of competition and pricing signals. I primarily blame the ridiculous concept we have that our employers should pay for our health insurance. This makes no sense whatsoever; it eliminates direct competition and routes people into one-size-fits-all plans, and it means if you lose your job you're doubly screwed. It makes no more sense for my employer to pay for my health insurance than it does for them to pay for my house or car.
Not if I was on the jury. People accidentally run face-first into blunt objects all the time, sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
How about taking the profit out of health care
Again, what does that actually mean? Should it be illegal to purchase health care outside of the national system? If not, then somebody's going to be making a profit.
And this is why I will never be an organ donor. I don't want to be spare parts for the wealthy.
Thank you for illustrating that envy is more destructive than greed.
I think most of the people on here are upset not because Jobs used his money to "get better faster." We are upset because you shouldn't be allowed to do so
That's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but upon further thought really isn't. Should rich people not be allowed to see dieticians and personal trainers, or buy more expensive and healthier food? Should they not be allowed to buy cars with extra safety features or home security systems?
To put it another way, a person shouldn't have to be worried whether they will live or die based on how much money is left in their savings account. It's plain wrong and -- I'd argue -- inhumane.
The only way to make it impossible to spend money for better health outcomes is to criminalize anything beyond very basic care.
And F' to your counter arguments based around MONEY. I don't care, and any sane person that isn't self interested (said 'greedy') would recognize that the man's privacy is much more valuable than all of Apple.
What does that even mean? Jobs should be able to run the company into the ground rather than step down or disclose his health problems? Not that that's what happened here, but this is the sort of overinflated rhetoric that prevents us from having rational discussions about these subjects. No, my privacy is not infinitely valuable, and neither is my life.
I don't remember for sure - you might even be able to deploy to a phone that's physically connected to your Mac without paying anything.
You can, but only if you jailbreak. Build the app in Xcode without code signing, scp it to /Applications on the iPhone, then run ldid (available in Cydia) to give it a fake signature that will allow it to run. Yes, this is very stupid.
That device didn't pretend to allow for complete customizability. It was sold as a device that could and couldn't do certain things.
And the annoyance is that those limitations are entirely imposed by Apple's business and marketing sides. Before the app store, Apple and its fanboys were firmly declaring that there shouldn't be third party apps for the iPhone because it didn't have enough power to run them, and it would lead to widespread viruses and disruption of the phone network, and web apps were just as good anyway. The jailbreakers and unauthorized app developers demonstrated all of those reasons to be utterly bogus. Now we're hearing the same sort of story about how mass chaos will ensue if Apple doesn't have doesn't have unlimited veto power over what apps you can run. I'm not inclined to believe that.
The iPhone is a brilliant piece of engineering, made substantially less useful by Apple's marketing games. Apple may have the right to do that, but let's not pretend it's good for anyone except possibly them.
IMHO the purpose of math in public schools is to make sure that upon release into the real world, students can do things like balance their checkbook, calculate a tip or a discount without a calculator, make change, and understand the concept of compounding interest.
Which doesn't require anything beyond basic arithmetic, with maybe a bit of Algebra I for compound interest exponentials. If that were really the goal, we'd replace mandatory trigonometry with personal finance, with lesson plans such as "credit cards are not free money" and "lottery tickets are a poor investment". (Although since lottery proceeds often fund schools, getting that last one in could be contentious).
Funny, most textbooks don't even have a blurb that big on Creation Science, despite it having a lot to say... [answersingenesis.org]
That is a shame. It would be an excellent resource in political science and marketing classes to show how to lie out of your ass and get millions of people to believe you.
Depends on the teacher. I hated doing trig integrals the normal way so I'd convert them to complex exponentials (being a geek and having read ahead a few hundred pages), and my teacher was perfectly fine with that.
AT&T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.
If true, that's profoundly stupid of AT&T. (Which doesn't mean it's not true). As a classic blunder, "don't get into a PR battle with Apple" ranks only slightly below "never get involved in a land war in Asia".
It's not a conspiracy, it's just a monopolistic provider not responding to customer desires, which is exactly what you'd expect. As far as the iPhone is concerned, AT&T is the phone company.
it was just Disaster Area tuning up for their gig tonight 600 years ago
Please consult Dr. Streetmentioner's reference for the proper use of the Relativistic Simul-Past-Present tense.
In person, there's an element of learning your opponents, seeing when they're bluffing, and controlling how much information you release. It's subtle.
That's true in online poker as well. Physical tells are overrated; betting patterns are much more useful.
On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time.
Technically true but practically false. There does exist a "perfect" strategy for poker in the minimax sense, but it's not known what that is because of the huge number of possible hands and betting sequences, and it wouldn't be the optimal strategy against imperfect players anyway. If you're playing against somebody who bluffs a lot, you should call in many cases where the "perfect" strategy would tell you to fold.
If true, that's an excellent argument for legalizing it. The money that US bettors lose to US casinos would cancel out, and the money that they collect from foreign bettors is a win.
You can't. And since they are over seas without regulation you have no way of knowing.
Except that you can record every hand you play and statistically analyze them. If there's any funny business like somebody else having pocket aces when you have pocket kings more often than chance allows, it would eventually be discovered. That's how the recent cheating at UltimateBet was uncovered.