There's a difference between being self-interested and being an efficient agent in a free market. The telco in question, is, not unreasonably from their point of view, the former.
Yes. Be extremely smart and know the financial services industry inside out. Have strong technical/numerical skills, such as a statistical modelling degree or somethign like that. Know your economics. And be aware you are joining a company where the lowest performing 5% of staff are let go annually.
And to answer your question, it's not hard to become rich, it just involves more work than most people are willing to put up with. Go and start a coffee shop, run it well, expand, and once you have a sizeable business sell it off for a few million dollars and live off the interest for the rest of your life.
Actually, it seems pretty damned reasonable to me. Rawls, and the Veil of Ignorance, and all that. The rich don't matter, the poor do. And under the system we've got, they have a better chance of yanking themselves up than under any other system. Why do you think people from third world countries will abandon everything to come and live here?
Not for a second, but I also think it's a very, very easily solved problem. Dear Western Union: run a tight ship or all your US branches get shut down. Love, the govment. The fact that this hasn't happened says to me that these operations remaining as they are is convenient for someone at a fairly high level: draw your own conclusions.
Academically, it's done, it just needs sufficient incentive for users to switch. How to create effective P2P networks is an interesting area of academic research, and there's been quite a lot done on it over the last few years (eMule and BitTorrent both started life as academic works).
I suspect the Conservatives are sufficiently pragmatic to make soothing noise to Big Meeja, take their campaign money, and then do nothing about it once they get in. One of my main reasons for favouring the Tories this time around is they seem not to have the Labour approach of knee-jerk legislation for any given problem.
I've been on several mailing lists hosted on Yahoo Groups over the years, of various sizes, and they all work extremely well. You get the occasional spam invasion, but that's going to be true of any large mail list provider.
When you collect from a Western Union branch, you have to bring ID and it is copied. As far as I can tell, no-one follows the money trail because the international nature of it makes life more hassle than it's worth for law enforcement: by the time you got to someone you could nail, the chances are any trial would fall apart in a nightmare of extradition laws and evidence rules. That said, though, the cash probably is laundered at some stage.
Maybe that's what they want you to think. You *have* read Cryptonomicon, haven't you? Sometimes having the information can be more of a pain than not having it.
A long, long time ago Scientology were the first people to force/. to remove a post for content reasons. Still in the FAQ, I think. Suffice it to say the editorial team still put up schadenfreudist stories whenever something bad happens to them.
I'm not sure what applications extremely high frequency vibrations have
But it didn't stop you rabbitting your ill-informed speculation for the rest of your post, did it? Egads, if you are not familiar with the basic properties of waves in general and acoustic waves in particular, why would you pollute the network with your ignorant ravings? Be quiet.
One of the most commonly used platforms out in the field right now is the iPhone. Its lack of robustness is more than made up for by its cheapness, ubiquity, and ease of use.
Given that no large and liquid market has ever existed for any length of time in an unfettered capitalist set-up, I'm curious to know why it is that it will inevitably lead to a non-free market. The closest approximations we have, the markets for various financial products (stocks, bonds, derivatives, futures, etc) or tradeable commodities show no such tendency towards becoming non-free, and indeed seem to encourage a diversity of buyers and sellers (the argument about whether such markets are entirely benign is a separate one: I believe they are, but many people obviously disagree).
Gawd knows where the numbers came from, but the point seems sound enough: they can create a substrate and magnetise it arbitrarily, so you have something that can in theory serve as a data storage medium.
In parts of the world that don't perceive names in the same fairly narrow way that you do, a name like Donald MacDonald is fairly unremarkable. Slightly remarkable, but not sufficiently so as to incite speculation on the motives of the parents.
Oh goodness, what fun, let's throw necdotes at each other. Of course the actions you describe are not right. Shockingly, it's what happens when people feel their rights are being trampled on: they occasionally lash out. I don't condone the actions you describe, but I don't see anything to be proud of in opposing equal rights for same sex couples either.
Slashdot Mirror
Pen as well, I just keep a red pen handy for clarifying any errors that scribbling and re-writing don't help with.
There's a difference between being self-interested and being an efficient agent in a free market. The telco in question, is, not unreasonably from their point of view, the former.
You mean, like the privately operated roads that worked extremely well in Europe and America up until the late 19th century?
Problem: people are sometimes successful. Solution: tax them so success has no value. Don't you see *any* problem with that? At all?
And to answer your question, it's not hard to become rich, it just involves more work than most people are willing to put up with. Go and start a coffee shop, run it well, expand, and once you have a sizeable business sell it off for a few million dollars and live off the interest for the rest of your life.
Actually, it seems pretty damned reasonable to me. Rawls, and the Veil of Ignorance, and all that. The rich don't matter, the poor do. And under the system we've got, they have a better chance of yanking themselves up than under any other system. Why do you think people from third world countries will abandon everything to come and live here?
Not for a second, but I also think it's a very, very easily solved problem. Dear Western Union: run a tight ship or all your US branches get shut down. Love, the govment. The fact that this hasn't happened says to me that these operations remaining as they are is convenient for someone at a fairly high level: draw your own conclusions.
Democracy isn't about choosing a government, it's about being able to dispose of the one you have. That is its real power.
Academically, it's done, it just needs sufficient incentive for users to switch. How to create effective P2P networks is an interesting area of academic research, and there's been quite a lot done on it over the last few years (eMule and BitTorrent both started life as academic works).
I suspect the Conservatives are sufficiently pragmatic to make soothing noise to Big Meeja, take their campaign money, and then do nothing about it once they get in. One of my main reasons for favouring the Tories this time around is they seem not to have the Labour approach of knee-jerk legislation for any given problem.
I've been on several mailing lists hosted on Yahoo Groups over the years, of various sizes, and they all work extremely well. You get the occasional spam invasion, but that's going to be true of any large mail list provider.
When you collect from a Western Union branch, you have to bring ID and it is copied. As far as I can tell, no-one follows the money trail because the international nature of it makes life more hassle than it's worth for law enforcement: by the time you got to someone you could nail, the chances are any trial would fall apart in a nightmare of extradition laws and evidence rules. That said, though, the cash probably is laundered at some stage.
Heh. I *knew* I would snipe somebody.
Maybe that's what they want you to think. You *have* read Cryptonomicon, haven't you? Sometimes having the information can be more of a pain than not having it.
Say what you like about Oedipus, he loved his mother...
A long, long time ago Scientology were the first people to force /. to remove a post for content reasons. Still in the FAQ, I think. Suffice it to say the editorial team still put up schadenfreudist stories whenever something bad happens to them.
Please, please, please...the word is obliged, not obligated. Thank you for your time.
Is it generally pretty easy to find nude pics of women you know? Because if it is, man, I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd.
I'm not sure what applications extremely high frequency vibrations have
But it didn't stop you rabbitting your ill-informed speculation for the rest of your post, did it? Egads, if you are not familiar with the basic properties of waves in general and acoustic waves in particular, why would you pollute the network with your ignorant ravings? Be quiet.
One of the most commonly used platforms out in the field right now is the iPhone. Its lack of robustness is more than made up for by its cheapness, ubiquity, and ease of use.
Given that no large and liquid market has ever existed for any length of time in an unfettered capitalist set-up, I'm curious to know why it is that it will inevitably lead to a non-free market. The closest approximations we have, the markets for various financial products (stocks, bonds, derivatives, futures, etc) or tradeable commodities show no such tendency towards becoming non-free, and indeed seem to encourage a diversity of buyers and sellers (the argument about whether such markets are entirely benign is a separate one: I believe they are, but many people obviously disagree).
Gawd knows where the numbers came from, but the point seems sound enough: they can create a substrate and magnetise it arbitrarily, so you have something that can in theory serve as a data storage medium.
In parts of the world that don't perceive names in the same fairly narrow way that you do, a name like Donald MacDonald is fairly unremarkable. Slightly remarkable, but not sufficiently so as to incite speculation on the motives of the parents.
Not that I disagree, but what exactly can they do? It's not like gay people are made to sit at the back of the bus.
Oh goodness, what fun, let's throw necdotes at each other. Of course the actions you describe are not right. Shockingly, it's what happens when people feel their rights are being trampled on: they occasionally lash out. I don't condone the actions you describe, but I don't see anything to be proud of in opposing equal rights for same sex couples either.