The productivity went to pay government employees, who by the very nature of their jobs DO NOT PRODUCE and frequently act to impede, prevent, or destroy production.
What needs to be done is to educate people that your sort of lies damage life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rich people are not Scrooge McDuck, bulldozing their cash in a money bin. Rich people invest their money, and that benefits the "system". Some people, like Larry Ellison, even put large amounts of money into anti-aging research.
You can lengthen your HDDs' lives by keeping them cool, within limits. You can do the same for yourself. High temperatures hasten chemical reactions, including those which degrade your body.
If there was some way to structure a 20-30 hour work week and still provide a comparable wage to current 40 hour stuff, would allow more people in workforce.
Once your children are gone, it shouldn't take more than 15 years in advanced countries to save enough money to live off the interest for the rest of your life. YMMV, conditions apply.
Most of the problems from objects hitting the ocean are due to ocean wave impulses. Many moderate size objects don't produce huge impulses, one big object would.
The evaporation of a lot of water is a short-term event. It condenses and falls back out of the skies, all done in a week or two. The atmosphere can only hold so much water. Putting a lot of salt into the air may cause some problems; many land plants don't like salty environments.
So nobody else is capable of looking at a clock, comparing it to GMT, calculating the difference, and typing the result into a program that calculates the time from then until the daylight savings time change?
The "too big to fail" argument was pure bullshit; the bailout took place because of the combined effects of widespread economic ignorance and the political power of the banks.
The breakup of Standard Oil was completely without merit. It gained its dominant position through honest means. AT&T, on the other hand, was a partial monopoly tied to the legal system, and its breakup was in some degree reasonable.
Yes, let's have every crackpot run for 10 or 12 offices at taxpayer expense, and have as much of a political voice as a serious, rational person with good ideas. That will work just fine, you betcha.
Let's see, "Make everyone pay their fair share of taxes" and "universal health insurance"
I eat carefully, exercise moderately, and spend $1000 a year on selected food supplements. Please explain how it is "fair" for me to pay (through the medium of insurance) for the health care of a drunk obese smoking heroin addict
Get individual retirement investors out of the market and into something safer like a pension or annuity.
Pensions often disappear when a company fails or is run by dishonest people. Pensions are not a good bet.
Annuities are a bit safer, but their return is generally VERY poor and the companies that run them sometimes go bankrupt. Poof goes the annuity.
The market as a whole (not individual stocks), if invested in steadily over a working life, returns over 7% a year, which beats "inflation" by a little. The market is an echo of the health of the overall economy, and takes advantage of people actually trying to be productive. Overall, it's really hard to do better than the economy of the whole nation you live in. In recent years, it's become possible to invest in low burden exchange traded funds like QQQ that track a large part of the market. In my opinion, if a person isn't willing or able to shepherd his stock holdings, that's the way to go.
Capitalism naturally leads to this outcome because there is no check on how much you can accumulate and no democratic control over pricing and resources.
If you understand the words you write you cannot come to that conclusion. Capitalism - in this context the voluntary exchange of money and goods - is inherently democratic (not in the sense that majority rules, but that everyone can deal as he pleases.) If I try to sell a wooden thimble for $1000, everybody will refuse to buy it. People (the demos) have put an absolute check on what I can accumulate. I might sell some thimbles for 25 cents, in which case I can accumulate a little. Viewing both events, people have had a great influence on my pricing (Although not absolute control, which is neither capitalistic nor proper.)
As with goods, so with resources, for there is no valid distinction between the two.
What you call "capitalism _in the real world_" is the result of government meddling in the affair of innocent folk and failing in its responsibility to define and protect a person's right to support his own life.
Our lives are going to suck until all the debt our banks created is destroyed. There's no way we can afford to pay it all back, that would cripple the global economy for the next 30 years. Instead these debts should simply be abolished.
Your proposal does not truly eliminate the debt, it just changes who gets stolen from. Saying "You don't owe this anymore" may relieve your particular debt problem, but it damages people who fronted the money in the first place and who have put things at risk that may not be recognized by the word "debt."
Far worse, it sets a bad precedent. Clowns who got a house by signing a mortgage they couldn't afford, get to keep their house without further payments. What's their reaction going to be? "Cool, dude, but now I want a bigger house. Let's do it again!" Failing to allow market processes to punish bad behavior guarantees that the bad behavior will be repeated.
If you aren't voting in the primaries you can't do much good. Party leaders in each area wield enough influence that their choices dominate, and their choice will always be more power, regardless of party. Their choices must be defeated before November.
It's sad to see this fallacy repeated so often. It is in some ways equivalent to the broken window fallacy.
The economy improved during and after WWII as counterproductive (leftist and idiotic, but I repeat myself) restrictions on productive activity were removed from law, and some of FDR's agencies were ended. When the destruction and restriction of production ends, production improves. It's that simple.
I've seen some of the people who come out of college in the US with a bachelors in electrical engineering. A few are OK, but the most are simply unfit to do even the most primitive engineering.
You've read too many headlines, and perhaps talked to too many people whose college duped them into thinking they'd been educated as EEs. You should talk to HR people and the chief engineers who are requesting people to do engineering. If the company in question isn't as glamorous as Google, Apple, IBM and the like, the people looking for jobs are pathetic.
Knowledge of genetics is far from complete. Differences can lead to susceptibility/resistance to certain diseases, poisons, etc.. In some cases there's a tradeoff involved. There can be differences that might not qualify as an "error", that would nonetheless reduce the likelihood of living to extreme old age.
Yes, there's ignorance involved here, because knowledge of genetics is incomplete. But to imply that genetics does not strongly influence the odds of living to extreme age assumes facts not in evidence.
Low speed film has better color but really big film grain. High speed film has very small film grain, but poor color.
Low speed film has small grain, high speed film has big grain. The big grains intercept more photons, thus allowing a lower light intensity to develop that grain. Hence bigger grain allows more sensitivity, called "high speed".
Even the best analog copies have accumulation of errors with each generation. Not only dust and new grain, but dimensional distortion, nonlinear exposure distortion, scratches, and loss of color separation (unless separate films for each color are used.)
Focus of the original film is rarely perfect, nor is it likely that the exposure was at an f-stop that allowed best resolution. Also, I'd be surprised if there are many cases of working with the original negatives. And there are other degrading factors, such as motion blur. Overall, it's unlikely that more than a small portion of any film can recover more than 50 lp/mm. 35 mm images are 24 mm wide, that's 2400 pixels wide; 70 mm motion picture film takes images 52.48 mm wide, that's 5248 pixels wide at 50 lp/mm.
To get best results, oversampling should be used to get the places that would be zeros in a lower resolution transfer function, and surely high resolution records should be kept for archives and as a source for digital post-processing. But super-high resolution for the viewer of entertainment video from filmstock is pointless.
Fast growth lumber is hardly what I'd call good. It's the most economical method to meet building codes, but it's weaker than lumber from trees that grow more slowly (generally speaking and other things being equal).
It would be nice if Adobe put this into their software, but it's been technically possible for decades, what's taken them so long?
True image stabilization has been available for a few years in cameras for $130 or less. The need for motion blur fixing in software is considerably reduced if an IS camera is used.
A completely out-of-focus picture actually contains nearly as much information as a sharp photo, it's just smeared with a reversible mathematical transform called a point spread function.
It is not always true that the transform is reversible, and in fact it is seldom true. There are many problems, and three of them are:
Zeros in the transform function can never be recovered
Things at different distances from the taking lens will have different functions. The world is 3D, the sensor 2D. Recovering things at different depths in the same image is a more difficult task.
Even if the transform function doesn't hit zero but just becomes small, attempted recovery amplifies noise, sometimes to troublesome magnitudes
Slashdot Mirror
The productivity went to pay government employees, who by the very nature of their jobs DO NOT PRODUCE and frequently act to impede, prevent, or destroy production.
What needs to be done is to educate people that your sort of lies damage life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rich people are not Scrooge McDuck, bulldozing their cash in a money bin. Rich people invest their money, and that benefits the "system". Some people, like Larry Ellison, even put large amounts of money into anti-aging research.
You can lengthen your HDDs' lives by keeping them cool, within limits. You can do the same for yourself. High temperatures hasten chemical reactions, including those which degrade your body.
The Patchwork Girl, among others. My recommendation: don't read it, you'll regret it for as long as you can remember it.
It's called increased productivity.
Once your children are gone, it shouldn't take more than 15 years in advanced countries to save enough money to live off the interest for the rest of your life. YMMV, conditions apply.
Deflecting a comet or asteroid or two is a manageable problem, but how do we handle 3000 objects all at the same time?
Most of the problems from objects hitting the ocean are due to ocean wave impulses. Many moderate size objects don't produce huge impulses, one big object would.
The evaporation of a lot of water is a short-term event. It condenses and falls back out of the skies, all done in a week or two. The atmosphere can only hold so much water. Putting a lot of salt into the air may cause some problems; many land plants don't like salty environments.
So nobody else is capable of looking at a clock, comparing it to GMT, calculating the difference, and typing the result into a program that calculates the time from then until the daylight savings time change?
The "too big to fail" argument was pure bullshit; the bailout took place because of the combined effects of widespread economic ignorance and the political power of the banks.
The breakup of Standard Oil was completely without merit. It gained its dominant position through honest means. AT&T, on the other hand, was a partial monopoly tied to the legal system, and its breakup was in some degree reasonable.
Yes, let's have every crackpot run for 10 or 12 offices at taxpayer expense, and have as much of a political voice as a serious, rational person with good ideas. That will work just fine, you betcha.
Let's see, "Make everyone pay their fair share of taxes" and "universal health insurance"
I eat carefully, exercise moderately, and spend $1000 a year on selected food supplements. Please explain how it is "fair" for me to pay (through the medium of insurance) for the health care of a drunk obese smoking heroin addict
Pensions often disappear when a company fails or is run by dishonest people. Pensions are not a good bet.
Annuities are a bit safer, but their return is generally VERY poor and the companies that run them sometimes go bankrupt. Poof goes the annuity.
The market as a whole (not individual stocks), if invested in steadily over a working life, returns over 7% a year, which beats "inflation" by a little. The market is an echo of the health of the overall economy, and takes advantage of people actually trying to be productive. Overall, it's really hard to do better than the economy of the whole nation you live in. In recent years, it's become possible to invest in low burden exchange traded funds like QQQ that track a large part of the market. In my opinion, if a person isn't willing or able to shepherd his stock holdings, that's the way to go.
If you understand the words you write you cannot come to that conclusion. Capitalism - in this context the voluntary exchange of money and goods - is inherently democratic (not in the sense that majority rules, but that everyone can deal as he pleases.) If I try to sell a wooden thimble for $1000, everybody will refuse to buy it. People (the demos) have put an absolute check on what I can accumulate. I might sell some thimbles for 25 cents, in which case I can accumulate a little. Viewing both events, people have had a great influence on my pricing (Although not absolute control, which is neither capitalistic nor proper.)
As with goods, so with resources, for there is no valid distinction between the two.
What you call "capitalism _in the real world_" is the result of government meddling in the affair of innocent folk and failing in its responsibility to define and protect a person's right to support his own life.
If the protestors are so wise, why aren't they clean and polite and cogent and earning a living?
Your proposal does not truly eliminate the debt, it just changes who gets stolen from. Saying "You don't owe this anymore" may relieve your particular debt problem, but it damages people who fronted the money in the first place and who have put things at risk that may not be recognized by the word "debt."
Far worse, it sets a bad precedent. Clowns who got a house by signing a mortgage they couldn't afford, get to keep their house without further payments. What's their reaction going to be? "Cool, dude, but now I want a bigger house. Let's do it again!" Failing to allow market processes to punish bad behavior guarantees that the bad behavior will be repeated.
If you aren't voting in the primaries you can't do much good. Party leaders in each area wield enough influence that their choices dominate, and their choice will always be more power, regardless of party. Their choices must be defeated before November.
It's sad to see this fallacy repeated so often. It is in some ways equivalent to the broken window fallacy.
The economy improved during and after WWII as counterproductive (leftist and idiotic, but I repeat myself) restrictions on productive activity were removed from law, and some of FDR's agencies were ended. When the destruction and restriction of production ends, production improves. It's that simple.
I've seen some of the people who come out of college in the US with a bachelors in electrical engineering. A few are OK, but the most are simply unfit to do even the most primitive engineering.
You've read too many headlines, and perhaps talked to too many people whose college duped them into thinking they'd been educated as EEs. You should talk to HR people and the chief engineers who are requesting people to do engineering. If the company in question isn't as glamorous as Google, Apple, IBM and the like, the people looking for jobs are pathetic.
Knowledge of genetics is far from complete. Differences can lead to susceptibility/resistance to certain diseases, poisons, etc.. In some cases there's a tradeoff involved. There can be differences that might not qualify as an "error", that would nonetheless reduce the likelihood of living to extreme old age.
Yes, there's ignorance involved here, because knowledge of genetics is incomplete. But to imply that genetics does not strongly influence the odds of living to extreme age assumes facts not in evidence.
Low speed film has small grain, high speed film has big grain. The big grains intercept more photons, thus allowing a lower light intensity to develop that grain. Hence bigger grain allows more sensitivity, called "high speed".
Even the best analog copies have accumulation of errors with each generation. Not only dust and new grain, but dimensional distortion, nonlinear exposure distortion, scratches, and loss of color separation (unless separate films for each color are used.)
Focus of the original film is rarely perfect, nor is it likely that the exposure was at an f-stop that allowed best resolution. Also, I'd be surprised if there are many cases of working with the original negatives. And there are other degrading factors, such as motion blur. Overall, it's unlikely that more than a small portion of any film can recover more than 50 lp/mm. 35 mm images are 24 mm wide, that's 2400 pixels wide; 70 mm motion picture film takes images 52.48 mm wide, that's 5248 pixels wide at 50 lp/mm.
To get best results, oversampling should be used to get the places that would be zeros in a lower resolution transfer function, and surely high resolution records should be kept for archives and as a source for digital post-processing. But super-high resolution for the viewer of entertainment video from filmstock is pointless.
Fast growth lumber is hardly what I'd call good. It's the most economical method to meet building codes, but it's weaker than lumber from trees that grow more slowly (generally speaking and other things being equal).
It would be nice if Adobe put this into their software, but it's been technically possible for decades, what's taken them so long?
True image stabilization has been available for a few years in cameras for $130 or less. The need for motion blur fixing in software is considerably reduced if an IS camera is used.
It is not always true that the transform is reversible, and in fact it is seldom true. There are many problems, and three of them are:
And there are other problems.