Really? The Brits use "bullocks, bugger, bloody" vs the US using "bullshit, fuck, fucking." And what, exactly is a swear word? Which do you rate worse, cocksucker or knob-gobbler?
Exactly. The "covering your costs" is done either with social programs or from your pockets, then they make a profit. The original point was about "not charging a cent" when they get robbed. How profit got into this, I have no idea, but derailing discussions and tossing in irrelevant subjects that no one brought up isn't helpful.
Exactly right on the original point. Except you derailed the conversation when claiming that the government covered their costs when the banks lose money. That is just plain wrong. And when I pointed that out, you brought up the service fees as a way of showing that they do charge for losses. But they don't. Service fee increases are used to increase profit, not as a reaction to some ATM losses.
Um, you did. You said "either way, the bank either charges you higher service fees or lower interest." Maybe you should check your own density, dipwad.
I know of a guy who just called around to universities until he found someone with the same name who graduated about when he would have. Instant degree.
Either way, the bank either charges you higher service fees and lower interest, or it gets private insurance, or it goes crying, Oliver Twist-style, to the government with its hands out. The bank loses nothing. Ever. But they sure tell YOU to take risks!
Like I said, government does not pay for theft. Okay, so it raises service fees or gets private insurance. Are you complaining that their business model is to profit?
"they are not charging you a red cent if they have a theft."
No, they socialize that to the government insurance, which you pay for with your taxes. Banks take zero risk here.
Really? You think when a thief steals $1000 from an ATM that the bank gets paid back by the government? What country do you live in? The government insurance only kicks in when a bank actually fails - then the depositors get the money - not the bank.
Particular School Boards of Education setting passing levels has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, and everything to do with No Child Left Behind (read your nwpr.org link). Race-based passing levels is certainly absurd. These BOE are just scrambling to find a way to keep their federal funding.
Is the daily beast biased? Who knows, but bias or not when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're wrong.
Unless you live under a rock, you know the answer is YES, MOST ASSUREDLY, YES.
It seems like you already hate the daily beast (why I don't know) but unless you have proof of the contrary, or a good reason to suspect their wrong, announce it rather than saying something to the effect of "well I just hate them." In other words, attack the argument, not the person.
I don't know where you draw the conclusion that I HATE the daily beast. I never said or implied any such thing. I merely pointed out that they are biased. If you spend more than a minute reading the website that fact will become obvious. I did not say their data was invalid; I merely pointed out that the conclusions and slant of the article makes their agenda obvious.
I'm already about to graduate from college myself, and after that happens I intend on being self employed and/or contracting, so AA doesn't apply to me in either case, nor do I have any kids, thus I have no dog in this fight.
FYI, I graduated almost 30 years ago on a scholarship for DC residents that was intended to increase black attendance at GWU; they did not turn me down because I happen to be white. I have no dog in the fight either.
At the same time though, when I spot an injustice I will call it out, regardless of whether or not it affects me.
I'm with you there. Because I grew up in DC (very predominantly black), I have seen some serious institutionalized discrimination over the years. It is rampant, in pretty much everywhere I've lived (from coast to coast). If you don't see it, you are likely too young or too blind. AA is supposed to be a form of their "40 acres and a mule" that they never got.
Third, when I say AA is working as intended, I mean exactly that: It is keeping the races aligned according to a rather arbitrary definition of what percent of them "ought to be" there, with complete disregard of the number of them who even apply to begin with or actually do belong there.
On that, you are misinformed. People such as Jesse Jackson may use such proportions to show what he perceives as discrimination, but actual AA laws in the US do no such thing. You can begin your education in this area with JFK's executive order 10925 and go from there.
I never said that it is intended to fuck over Asians,
Okay, my bad, but it looked like it to me when you said: "affirmative action is very much applying to Asians. A) It shits on them B) It is working as intended." Do you see how easy it is draw that conclusion from your words?
however and this is the key: Its intended result does have the effect of fucking over Asians, even though fucking over Asians isn't the intent of the program itself.
I disagree with your conclusion that Asians are being "fucked over" based solely on the fact that they would gain if AA were tossed. If speed limits were abolished, people would drive faster, consuming more fuel. Does this mean that gas stations are being "fucked over" by speed limits? No.
The information may be the same, but the spin is not. The Princeton study simply points out that eliminating Affirmative Action would not increase white enrollment, so whites' complaints about AA don't help. Your spin (and The Daily Beast) is that AA is designed to fuck over Asians. Your argument is designed to get Asians to hop on the anti-AA bandwagon. The Princeton link has no such angle.
Tests have already been done on countless millions of people. None of them complained about being dead, said they'd rather be doing something else, or petitioned to be made no-longer dead. Zero.
Our common sense (and some very strong instincts) tell us it's an extremely bad thing, but thousands of years of observations suggest that once it happens, nobody really cares anymore.
You've just been ignoring their complaints. They're screaming in pain in various haunted houses.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. The proponents of such theories usually believe that there is some exclusive group of a few people actively engaged in a secret plot to accomplish some stated goal by pursuing or suppressing some seemingly harmless agenda.
FYI: I'm one of those people in such an exclusive group, you insensitive clod!
4 million photos of 4 thousand people. That is an average of 1000 images of each person. Wow. It's really hard to imagine people have that many photos of themselves on Facebook (okay, the teenagers do take selfies daily, but that would still be 3 years of daily selfies). I also see a lot of occurrences of people being "tagged" in a photo just so that person will be alerted to the existence of the photo - for example, photos of their kids doing something cute. That's gotta fuck with the algorithm a bit.
No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.
Where were you complaints when Bush Jr was becoming the president with the most time off from work? Google it.
Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc.
How so? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that all loans closely follow inflation rates.
For example if the inflation goes to 600%, wouldn't your loan immediately become 600% of the total amount you borrowed in the past?
A most definite NO. Some loans are linked to inflation (more accurately to particular interest rates), but they generally have lifetime caps on the order of 10 percentage points.
Gold is useful (you can attract women with it), and has all the other features except divisibility for small amounts, and portability for large amounts, so for a long time it was the best currency.
Finally, someone with a convincing argument for gold being intrinsically useful.
My biggest complaint about the mp3 music player industry is: Why are they still over selling 1/2/4GB devices!?!?!?!?!?
Honestly, I can't even imagine why Apple, Sony, Philips and other large brands that I find in my average tech store even bother to have/sell, but actively promote these minuscule devices. At least 128GB approaches a reasonable size for today's music collections.
To me it is similar to Linus' rant about laptop monitors.
Except if you pack it with 192KHz samples instead of 44.1KHz, your capacity effectively goes down to 128/3 = 42 GB. Apple still offers the iPad Classic with 160 GB for $249.
I can see how a constant stream of telemetry might be cost-prohibitive, but what about a squirt of data consisting of -
- Flight Number
- Lat / Long
- Airspeed
- Groundspeed
- Altitude
- Compass heeding...sent every five minutes? At least that would give a 'last known' location.
While you're at it, why not have it put this data out as twitter feed?
>When we run out of fresh water, the real wars begin.
Thank God that we can desalinate water then; and that desalination plants, while more expensive, aren't going to increase the price of water to the point you'll be afraid to take a shower. Might be afraid to fill the pool, though.
Might also be afraid to grow vegetables - and that affects everybody in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? The Brits use "bullocks, bugger, bloody" vs the US using "bullshit, fuck, fucking." And what, exactly is a swear word? Which do you rate worse, cocksucker or knob-gobbler?
Exactly. The "covering your costs" is done either with social programs or from your pockets, then they make a profit. The original point was about "not charging a cent" when they get robbed. How profit got into this, I have no idea, but derailing discussions and tossing in irrelevant subjects that no one brought up isn't helpful.
Exactly right on the original point. Except you derailed the conversation when claiming that the government covered their costs when the banks lose money. That is just plain wrong. And when I pointed that out, you brought up the service fees as a way of showing that they do charge for losses. But they don't. Service fee increases are used to increase profit, not as a reaction to some ATM losses.
That isn't a profit. That's "covering your costs", dumbfuck.
Wow, you don't seem to understand that "covering your costs" is the first step to profit. You, are the dumbfuck of the year.
Um, you did. You said "either way, the bank either charges you higher service fees or lower interest." Maybe you should check your own density, dipwad.
I know of a guy who just called around to universities until he found someone with the same name who graduated about when he would have. Instant degree.
Since when do businesses depreciate expenses like electricity?
They don't. They expense it.
Either way, the bank either charges you higher service fees and lower interest, or it gets private insurance, or it goes crying, Oliver Twist-style, to the government with its hands out. The bank loses nothing. Ever. But they sure tell YOU to take risks!
Like I said, government does not pay for theft. Okay, so it raises service fees or gets private insurance. Are you complaining that their business model is to profit?
"they are not charging you a red cent if they have a theft."
No, they socialize that to the government insurance, which you pay for with your taxes. Banks take zero risk here.
Really? You think when a thief steals $1000 from an ATM that the bank gets paid back by the government? What country do you live in? The government insurance only kicks in when a bank actually fails - then the depositors get the money - not the bank.
If only you could pass those damned astro-navs....
Just write, "I am a fish," on the exam.
Particular School Boards of Education setting passing levels has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, and everything to do with No Child Left Behind (read your nwpr.org link). Race-based passing levels is certainly absurd. These BOE are just scrambling to find a way to keep their federal funding.
Is the daily beast biased? Who knows, but bias or not when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're wrong.
Unless you live under a rock, you know the answer is YES, MOST ASSUREDLY, YES.
It seems like you already hate the daily beast (why I don't know) but unless you have proof of the contrary, or a good reason to suspect their wrong, announce it rather than saying something to the effect of "well I just hate them." In other words, attack the argument, not the person.
I don't know where you draw the conclusion that I HATE the daily beast. I never said or implied any such thing. I merely pointed out that they are biased. If you spend more than a minute reading the website that fact will become obvious. I did not say their data was invalid; I merely pointed out that the conclusions and slant of the article makes their agenda obvious.
I'm already about to graduate from college myself, and after that happens I intend on being self employed and/or contracting, so AA doesn't apply to me in either case, nor do I have any kids, thus I have no dog in this fight.
FYI, I graduated almost 30 years ago on a scholarship for DC residents that was intended to increase black attendance at GWU; they did not turn me down because I happen to be white. I have no dog in the fight either.
At the same time though, when I spot an injustice I will call it out, regardless of whether or not it affects me.
I'm with you there. Because I grew up in DC (very predominantly black), I have seen some serious institutionalized discrimination over the years. It is rampant, in pretty much everywhere I've lived (from coast to coast). If you don't see it, you are likely too young or too blind. AA is supposed to be a form of their "40 acres and a mule" that they never got.
Third, when I say AA is working as intended, I mean exactly that: It is keeping the races aligned according to a rather arbitrary definition of what percent of them "ought to be" there, with complete disregard of the number of them who even apply to begin with or actually do belong there.
On that, you are misinformed. People such as Jesse Jackson may use such proportions to show what he perceives as discrimination, but actual AA laws in the US do no such thing. You can begin your education in this area with JFK's executive order 10925 and go from there.
I never said that it is intended to fuck over Asians,
Okay, my bad, but it looked like it to me when you said: "affirmative action is very much applying to Asians. A) It shits on them B) It is working as intended." Do you see how easy it is draw that conclusion from your words?
however and this is the key: Its intended result does have the effect of fucking over Asians, even though fucking over Asians isn't the intent of the program itself.
I disagree with your conclusion that Asians are being "fucked over" based solely on the fact that they would gain if AA were tossed. If speed limits were abolished, people would drive faster, consuming more fuel. Does this mean that gas stations are being "fucked over" by speed limits? No.
The information may be the same, but the spin is not. The Princeton study simply points out that eliminating Affirmative Action would not increase white enrollment, so whites' complaints about AA don't help. Your spin (and The Daily Beast) is that AA is designed to fuck over Asians. Your argument is designed to get Asians to hop on the anti-AA bandwagon. The Princeton link has no such angle.
Tests have already been done on countless millions of people. None of them complained about being dead, said they'd rather be doing something else, or petitioned to be made no-longer dead. Zero.
Our common sense (and some very strong instincts) tell us it's an extremely bad thing, but thousands of years of observations suggest that once it happens, nobody really cares anymore.
You've just been ignoring their complaints. They're screaming in pain in various haunted houses.
Quoting The Daily Beast in an argument against Affirmative Action is like asking mice if they think cats should be outlawed.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. The proponents of such theories usually believe that there is some exclusive group of a few people actively engaged in a secret plot to accomplish some stated goal by pursuing or suppressing some seemingly harmless agenda.
FYI: I'm one of those people in such an exclusive group, you insensitive clod!
4 million photos of 4 thousand people. That is an average of 1000 images of each person. Wow. It's really hard to imagine people have that many photos of themselves on Facebook (okay, the teenagers do take selfies daily, but that would still be 3 years of daily selfies). I also see a lot of occurrences of people being "tagged" in a photo just so that person will be alerted to the existence of the photo - for example, photos of their kids doing something cute. That's gotta fuck with the algorithm a bit.
Ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. Ten pounds of OS in a five pound box.
No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.
Where were you complaints when Bush Jr was becoming the president with the most time off from work? Google it.
Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc.
How so? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that all loans closely follow inflation rates.
For example if the inflation goes to 600%, wouldn't your loan immediately become 600% of the total amount you borrowed in the past?
A most definite NO. Some loans are linked to inflation (more accurately to particular interest rates), but they generally have lifetime caps on the order of 10 percentage points.
Gold is useful (you can attract women with it), and has all the other features except divisibility for small amounts, and portability for large amounts, so for a long time it was the best currency.
Finally, someone with a convincing argument for gold being intrinsically useful.
My biggest complaint about the mp3 music player industry is: Why are they still over selling 1/2/4GB devices!?!?!?!?!? Honestly, I can't even imagine why Apple, Sony, Philips and other large brands that I find in my average tech store even bother to have/sell, but actively promote these minuscule devices. At least 128GB approaches a reasonable size for today's music collections. To me it is similar to Linus' rant about laptop monitors.
Except if you pack it with 192KHz samples instead of 44.1KHz, your capacity effectively goes down to 128/3 = 42 GB. Apple still offers the iPad Classic with 160 GB for $249.
"Old man, take a look at my wife..."
FTFY (porno music)
I can see how a constant stream of telemetry might be cost-prohibitive, but what about a squirt of data consisting of - - Flight Number - Lat / Long - Airspeed - Groundspeed - Altitude - Compass heeding ...sent every five minutes? At least that would give a 'last known' location.
While you're at it, why not have it put this data out as twitter feed?
Fuck slashdot and their Slashvertisements. Head over to AltSlashdot.org
You're complaining about advertising and giving your own advertisement. Irony meter pegged at 11.
>When we run out of fresh water, the real wars begin.
Thank God that we can desalinate water then; and that desalination plants, while more expensive, aren't going to increase the price of water to the point you'll be afraid to take a shower. Might be afraid to fill the pool, though.
Might also be afraid to grow vegetables - and that affects everybody in the country.