Both of you are WRONG. Because it's not government backed means you don't loose value if you choose to save up. Goverment backed money looses value by printing of new money. Sure you still need to pay taxes, but you can exchange BTC just for the tax amount and other necessities - sure government backed legal tender is still required, but guess what? Longer you hold on to BTC, more it's worth when exchanged for legal tender for tax payment due to inflation alone.
BTC is just not for scammers, launderers etc. at all, a lot of businesses accept it. and this is really good because BTC is deflationary instead of inflationary. That means BTC tends to gain value, instead of loosing value.
Also, sellers of anything, any merchants, not just physical goods, need to pay tax.
birth is death sentence. Don't get born if you don't like it.
and babies are going to be must for them, they will eventually get old, even if they are self sustainable now, does not mean they will forever remain self sustainable. Self sustainability is their goal eventually in any case
they simplified a lot for this reason, also never underestimate the economics of private business operating things, all of sudden things get a lot more economic.
This is something which could become "national past time", people watching at least weekly, just to know how it's going there etc. It's friggin' another plant - it will have people intrested and it will somehow get funding.
and not all business interests are evil, and who if not businesses know how to make ends meet financially - when there is no one to bail you out. (Unless ofc your business is in Finance)
you are *FAR* from unprocted on motorcycle if you were the proper gear. You have boots, gloves, helmet and the suit, all of them designed to protect you. Also as long as you don't hit something, you are likely just to have some really bad scrapes on your suit/helmed, and some bruises.
By your statement, anything that is fun should be banned. Also motorcycles are fantastic for when you don't have a passenger or lots of luggage you need to haul. In comparison, using a car is kinda stupid, hauling a ton of extra weight (often literally and more), for absolutely no other reason than comfort.
why not ban these steel cages at the go too? They are comparable to small bomb in kinetic energy! Also, sports is so wasteful so let's ban all kinds of motorsports, and other sports for other than therapeutic reasons, so they can work longer days and get some productive stuff done......
Further, as shipping alcohol, and initially making it on site, is a no go due to costs involved, i just hope they give them some ganja seeds too (and at the go to see if it grows outside - being a damn resilient plant), for a way to relax etc. Plus it's a damn good all around medicine.
they can go outside, just in a suit. Wonder tho what kind of atmospheric dangers there are other than low press and being cold, if just a simple respirator and good clothing would be enough.
Also they plan on building large enough habitat to even have trees quite soon, so that provides some open space to avoid the batshit crazy phenomena.
Fortunately the colony will be self sufficient quite soon for the most basics! So they can keep rolling their thumbs in agony waiting for message if anyone of us survived, and if we are still able to send them some spare parts for the lifesupport pods.
What part of unproven is in melting ice to get water? Then purifying it, just to be safe? What part is unproven in turning water into oxygen and hydrogen? You know, water is H20 What part is unproven in separating different types of gases from each other?
Nothing! I believe we have already not only invented fire, but also carbon filtration. We have been turning H20 into 2xH and O for a reaally long time now, and we have definitively been separating gasses from each other, you know, you can just go and buy Co2, H, NOx and other gasses today, no problem almost anywhere in the modern world.
Maybe you should actually goto the site and read the FAQ.
- The trip to mars is less than 2years, infact just 7months
- They will send up ahead several missions to put in place: orbital communications satellite, living habitats, life support, rovers, scouting the area and choosing best location
- Basicly what they travel on to mars is a small spacestation, albeit this is left behind on landing - it's not needed at mars anymore
- Water, oxygen, electricity is all produced at mars
- Plants are grown and harvested by the people at mars - no need to send further proportions after farming gets going on
- few years later they will build a larger habitat from ON-SITE materials to even plants trees - think about fresh oranges, apples and such!;)
- Over time they will eat better and healthier than pretty much anyone on earth - for "free" as well. They will have certainly clean air and soil to grow their food on, probably also without usage of anykind of pesticides, and probably very little of any "non-organic" fertilizers.
point is getting people there for prolonged periods of time as soon as possible. Sending algae does not achieve that and terraforming with what we can transport one rocket at a time will take approximately 10 000years. Say even if 10,000kg a year pace.
Sending people, 4 every 2 years, having them built larger and larger habitats, will however achieve sensible budget terraforming efforts over time for required scale, even with just going around and moving crap around makes biological entities thrive in the outside atmosphere.
And just think what happens if they just throw their excrement and other biowaste (uneatable parts of veggies) in a outside "landfill"... maybe throw a few plant/tree seeds in there just for the fun of it;)
Then again, the truly incorrect thing was the penis reference in context. That's kinda saying microsoft sucks too. All the drug references are more anti-drug, and clearly the intent is to convey that coding is extremely fun... Well i guess for some people it is.
This seems mostly just people being tightassed flower hat aunties.
The true PR damage is how bad that whole performance was overally:D
I'm a Finnish small business owner, and i can say that the tax caveats at Finland don't stop to the corporation tax rate. There's also VAT which is 23% which limits direct consumer customers heavily on the European market, nevermind all the taxes when you employ someone which are quite heavy, mostly in form of hidden taxes etc.
You completely miss how internet actually works, the upstream ISP, or mid-transfer network, does not provide this service for free. While there is a cost difference between traffic targeted to elsewhere.
Facebook buys transit from ISP A, ISP A buys transit from ISP B which is a Tier1 provider, ISP B peers with ISP C with roughly equal data traffic flows, ISP C carries the data to another continent, where it enters ISP D network who buys for transit to ISP C, where it flows to Subscriber A who pays to ISP D.
ISP A, B, C and D all get paid varying sums, all of them making profit on the way, biggest per Mbps price is being paid by Facebook and Subscriber A.
ISP C is likely charging ISP D larger sum of money than it would be charging customers at the originating continent, or vice versa, to offset the cost of transcontinent links.
Also each ISP can see where the data originates from and goes to, so they can change their billing rates according to the flow characteristics and their cost base.
Enforced peering can only cause harm, if the peering type enforced is compensation free arrangements, ie. both parties only pay for their side port fees, the large networks will have no incentive as such to expand their network as they would be efficiently subsidizing small players who will not build any network of their own. As a small business owner i would be damn happy to connect to a Tier 1 network practically for free, but would get annoyed when i have to cover the crossconnect fees to peer with another small player who gives me no benefit. No one would remain to foot the bill except subscribers (Home users), and only incentive to invest into network is to lower costs but there would be no one to pay for it.
So internet would become a stitch of tons and tons of very small networks, maintained at whatever quality, with a lot of extra hops and extra latency, as no one wants to build long fiber runs.
As a small business owner heavily reliant on bandwidth i can foresee certain things change, based on the limited knowledge i have this (who does RTFA?). I think i saw something about distance of data as well.
If the tax is even 0.01€ per Tb of data... Well, let's just say an average 1Gbps server does 50Tb a month, that's easily accomodated then, but the added bureaucracy will be the highest cost (accounting is already one of the highest costs).
But more likely the tax will be more like 0.01€ per Gb, which means 10€ per Tb or ~310€ per 100Mbps, as that's more in line with the telecom lies about the cost. That would drive us out of business immediately, or force us to limit to local data traffic only -> again, out of business.
I'd say maximum we can rather easily "eat" is 10€ per 100Mbps with negligible impact on customer pricing for most customers, except for the bureaucracy, depending does our upstream do the tax maths or not. 1Gbps services would be priced out however and we would need to stop offering those.
On top of that, pricing dedicated server offerings becomes near impossible -> all data traffic has to be assumed at highest possible cost to avoid those who only order to max out to the highest taxed target.
At tax of 10€ per 100Mbps, we would probably loose 2/3rds of our business as the prices would become infeasible on all but lowest end offerings. However we would survive still, but just barely, if we can downscale fast enough which is completely another question as in every single case we have to bear extra cost for at least an week past customer paid period.
Slashdot Mirror
Perpetual and infinite growth is impossible
Like causing something's mass to increase exponentially and cause it to IMPLODE? :D
Both of you are WRONG.
Because it's not government backed means you don't loose value if you choose to save up. Goverment backed money looses value by printing of new money.
Sure you still need to pay taxes, but you can exchange BTC just for the tax amount and other necessities - sure government backed legal tender is still required, but guess what? Longer you hold on to BTC, more it's worth when exchanged for legal tender for tax payment due to inflation alone.
BTC is just not for scammers, launderers etc. at all, a lot of businesses accept it. and this is really good because BTC is deflationary instead of inflationary. That means BTC tends to gain value, instead of loosing value.
Also, sellers of anything, any merchants, not just physical goods, need to pay tax.
Are you saying, we humans, shouldn't have colonized even this planet fully?
Sounds like you are.
birth is death sentence. Don't get born if you don't like it.
and babies are going to be must for them, they will eventually get old, even if they are self sustainable now, does not mean they will forever remain self sustainable. Self sustainability is their goal eventually in any case
they simplified a lot for this reason, also never underestimate the economics of private business operating things, all of sudden things get a lot more economic.
Except the fact that everything has been done and tested in a scale or another atleast few times before.
they specifically chose only the kind of technologies that exists today and is purchaseable NOW.
producers won't be the only people they can communicate with. read the FAQ. They have full unlimited communications and internet access available.
This is something which could become "national past time", people watching at least weekly, just to know how it's going there etc.
It's friggin' another plant - it will have people intrested and it will somehow get funding.
and not all business interests are evil, and who if not businesses know how to make ends meet financially - when there is no one to bail you out. (Unless ofc your business is in Finance)
you are *FAR* from unprocted on motorcycle if you were the proper gear.
You have boots, gloves, helmet and the suit, all of them designed to protect you. Also as long as you don't hit something, you are likely just to have some really bad scrapes on your suit/helmed, and some bruises.
By your statement, anything that is fun should be banned.
Also motorcycles are fantastic for when you don't have a passenger or lots of luggage you need to haul. In comparison, using a car is kinda stupid, hauling a ton of extra weight (often literally and more), for absolutely no other reason than comfort.
why not ban these steel cages at the go too? They are comparable to small bomb in kinetic energy! ... ...
Also, sports is so wasteful so let's ban all kinds of motorsports, and other sports for other than therapeutic reasons, so they can work longer days and get some productive stuff done
So you'd rather not have us go at all on Mars? What an stupid idea.
Never mind, stopping private entities capable of doing this feat would just somehow, i don't know ... Feel like oppression?
Further, as shipping alcohol, and initially making it on site, is a no go due to costs involved, i just hope they give them some ganja seeds too (and at the go to see if it grows outside - being a damn resilient plant), for a way to relax etc.
Plus it's a damn good all around medicine.
Those guys will need someways to vent
they can go outside, just in a suit.
Wonder tho what kind of atmospheric dangers there are other than low press and being cold, if just a simple respirator and good clothing would be enough.
Also they plan on building large enough habitat to even have trees quite soon, so that provides some open space to avoid the batshit crazy phenomena.
Fortunately the colony will be self sufficient quite soon for the most basics! So they can keep rolling their thumbs in agony waiting for message if anyone of us survived, and if we are still able to send them some spare parts for the lifesupport pods.
Ok let's see.
What part of unproven is in melting ice to get water? Then purifying it, just to be safe?
What part is unproven in turning water into oxygen and hydrogen? You know, water is H20
What part is unproven in separating different types of gases from each other?
Nothing! I believe we have already not only invented fire, but also carbon filtration. We have been turning H20 into 2xH and O for a reaally long time now, and we have definitively been separating gasses from each other, you know, you can just go and buy Co2, H, NOx and other gasses today, no problem almost anywhere in the modern world.
Maybe you should actually goto the site and read the FAQ.
- The trip to mars is less than 2years, infact just 7months ;)
- They will send up ahead several missions to put in place: orbital communications satellite, living habitats, life support, rovers, scouting the area and choosing best location
- Basicly what they travel on to mars is a small spacestation, albeit this is left behind on landing - it's not needed at mars anymore
- Water, oxygen, electricity is all produced at mars
- Plants are grown and harvested by the people at mars - no need to send further proportions after farming gets going on
- few years later they will build a larger habitat from ON-SITE materials to even plants trees - think about fresh oranges, apples and such!
- Over time they will eat better and healthier than pretty much anyone on earth - for "free" as well. They will have certainly clean air and soil to grow their food on, probably also without usage of anykind of pesticides, and probably very little of any "non-organic" fertilizers.
Personally i would be missing for a good steak!
Think of the reality tv section as the cost for getting a ticket to mars ;)
point is getting people there for prolonged periods of time as soon as possible. Sending algae does not achieve that and terraforming with what we can transport one rocket at a time will take approximately 10 000years. Say even if 10,000kg a year pace.
Sending people, 4 every 2 years, having them built larger and larger habitats, will however achieve sensible budget terraforming efforts over time for required scale, even with just going around and moving crap around makes biological entities thrive in the outside atmosphere.
And just think what happens if they just throw their excrement and other biowaste (uneatable parts of veggies) in a outside "landfill" ... maybe throw a few plant/tree seeds in there just for the fun of it ;)
Just use a VPN and no need to fear :) :)
VPN service can be rather inexpensive
Indeed.
Then again, the truly incorrect thing was the penis reference in context. That's kinda saying microsoft sucks too.
All the drug references are more anti-drug, and clearly the intent is to convey that coding is extremely fun... Well i guess for some people it is.
This seems mostly just people being tightassed flower hat aunties.
The true PR damage is how bad that whole performance was overally :D
I'm a Finnish small business owner, and i can say that the tax caveats at Finland don't stop to the corporation tax rate.
There's also VAT which is 23% which limits direct consumer customers heavily on the European market, nevermind all the taxes when you employ someone which are quite heavy, mostly in form of hidden taxes etc.
You completely miss how internet actually works, the upstream ISP, or mid-transfer network, does not provide this service for free. While there is a cost difference between traffic targeted to elsewhere.
Facebook buys transit from ISP A, ISP A buys transit from ISP B which is a Tier1 provider, ISP B peers with ISP C with roughly equal data traffic flows, ISP C carries the data to another continent, where it enters ISP D network who buys for transit to ISP C, where it flows to Subscriber A who pays to ISP D.
ISP A, B, C and D all get paid varying sums, all of them making profit on the way, biggest per Mbps price is being paid by Facebook and Subscriber A.
ISP C is likely charging ISP D larger sum of money than it would be charging customers at the originating continent, or vice versa, to offset the cost of transcontinent links.
Also each ISP can see where the data originates from and goes to, so they can change their billing rates according to the flow characteristics and their cost base.
Enforced peering can only cause harm, if the peering type enforced is compensation free arrangements, ie. both parties only pay for their side port fees, the large networks will have no incentive as such to expand their network as they would be efficiently subsidizing small players who will not build any network of their own.
As a small business owner i would be damn happy to connect to a Tier 1 network practically for free, but would get annoyed when i have to cover the crossconnect fees to peer with another small player who gives me no benefit.
No one would remain to foot the bill except subscribers (Home users), and only incentive to invest into network is to lower costs but there would be no one to pay for it.
So internet would become a stitch of tons and tons of very small networks, maintained at whatever quality, with a lot of extra hops and extra latency, as no one wants to build long fiber runs.
As a small business owner heavily reliant on bandwidth i can foresee certain things change, based on the limited knowledge i have this (who does RTFA?). I think i saw something about distance of data as well.
If the tax is even 0.01€ per Tb of data ... Well, let's just say an average 1Gbps server does 50Tb a month, that's easily accomodated then, but the added bureaucracy will be the highest cost (accounting is already one of the highest costs).
But more likely the tax will be more like 0.01€ per Gb, which means 10€ per Tb or ~310€ per 100Mbps, as that's more in line with the telecom lies about the cost.
That would drive us out of business immediately, or force us to limit to local data traffic only -> again, out of business.
I'd say maximum we can rather easily "eat" is 10€ per 100Mbps with negligible impact on customer pricing for most customers, except for the bureaucracy, depending does our upstream do the tax maths or not.
1Gbps services would be priced out however and we would need to stop offering those.
On top of that, pricing dedicated server offerings becomes near impossible -> all data traffic has to be assumed at highest possible cost to avoid those who only order to max out to the highest taxed target.
At tax of 10€ per 100Mbps, we would probably loose 2/3rds of our business as the prices would become infeasible on all but lowest end offerings. However we would survive still, but just barely, if we can downscale fast enough which is completely another question as in every single case we have to bear extra cost for at least an week past customer paid period.