Pension funds should be fully-funded. That is the "spirit" of the law that I was talking about. It is immoral to promise employees future benefits for two reasons: you will not be around to guarantee those benefits, and it pushes the burden of your promises on to future generations. Things like bond-financed infrastructure do this as well, but at least the future generation gets the benefit of the infrastructure. A pension obligation gives them nothing.
In the case of the Post Office, they converted a pay-as-you-go system to a prepaid system almost overnight, which is absurd. I agree with the goal, but not with the execution.
Except that they are pretty much a monopoly in their markets. If you are lucky, you have competing service through your cable company, which is probably already capped and for many will be Time Warner.
How hard is it to kick off municipal broadband, anyway?
"No one" besides the government has pensions, and most of the government pensions are chronically underfunded. While I think the USPS pension requirement is being absurdly handled, the spirit of the law is reasonable enough - don't let politicians push the problem down the road. If you want to provide an employee benefit, then pay for the damn benefit rather than adding to our debt.
Presuming that you will fly SOME kind of jet, you need to subtract the cost of maintaining and updating the current fleet for the time period that you used to come up with the $59 billion... I'd bet that those 30 year old F-15s start to get pretty spendy when they are 50 or 60 years old and have triple their designed airframe hours.
1. A Ponzi scheme is a specific type of pyramid scheme, and the only one that makes sense in this context. I was answering a claim that it is a pyramid scheme. It could be some other kind of scam, I suppose, but the grandparent did not make such a claim. 2. It is clear that they are expanding upon the "possible win-win outcomes", not making concrete predictions about the future. 3. If Bitcoin proves to be deflationary, it will fail. People do not part with things that increase in value. 10 years ago people were treating Beanie Babies like they were gold - a few months ago, my neighbor gave my kids a black yard bag full of them in mint condition - still had their tags! If people treat Bitcoins like Beanie Babies, they will fail as a currency.
I think Bitcoin could find a niche as a universal electronic exchange currency, if regulators allow it. My risk will be low because I won't hold on to it very long - just exchange dollars for Bitcoins, make my purchase, and hold little or no balance. I do this currently with a prepaid credit card... if Bitcoin can be made as easy to use as a prepaid credit card, it will do fine. If regulators decide to make it illegal to buy Bitcoins at Walgreens, it will fail.
I don't know if you can call it a scam when they cover that in their FAQ. Even if you disagree, they are transparent about it:
Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme?
In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.
A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. Early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters. Bitcoin has possible win-win outcomes. Early adopters profit from the rise in value. Late adopters, and indeed, society as a whole, benefit from the usefulness of a stable, fast, inexpensive, and widely accepted p2p currency.
The fact that early adopters benefit more doesn't alone make anything a Ponzi scheme. All good investments in successful companies have this quality.
Yes, Brits apparently use the word "establishment" to refer to what Americans mean when they say "government". So, just replace "establishment" for "government" in all my posts.
Similarly, we use different meanings when we say "constitution". The Americans refer to a very specific document or set of documents, whereas the British use it to describe the traditions, documents, and precedents that they use to run their country.
Ironically, they are just know starting to produce technically good products.
I'm no Microsoft fan (Windows 8 has my ire up currently), but some versions of Windows have been solid. Windows 98SE was a very nice blend of stability and speed. Windows 2000 was bulletproof. Windows XP was very strong after SP2. Windows 7 is actually a nice upgrade as well.
Office has a more checkered past. It has improved with age, but the ribbon gives it a major ding.
I've been told by others that I should use the word "establishment" when talking to people from the UK when referring to what Americans call "government". That seems to be the main source of confusion in this thread. In other words, change my original post to say that the BBC is part of the establishment. My whole point was that it doesn't really matter who runs the BBC, so long as an individual is compelled to pay the fee it's all the same.
In fact, even the US doesn't completely rely on our constitution - we fall back on quite a bit of English Common Law. It would be nearly impossible to start from scratch.
Uh, just because you "can afford" something doesn't mean you want to pay it!
I'm at work or home 99% of the time, where there is ubiquitous WiFi. I only need about 100 minutes on my cell plan (in reality I use more like 200 because I haven't trained everyone to dial my Google Voice number).
WiFi calling lets me get a $30/month T-Mobile prepay plan with 5G data rather than paying double that just to get more minutes.
I was never arguing that the BBC was a part of the government
Yes you were.
Yes, but I was using a different definition of government than the people from the UK - thus the confusion. I'm American, so I was using the word as an American would. Substitute the word "government" with "establishment" and my comment comes across in the way I intended to a person from the UK.
Any society that needs the queen's approval to make charter decisions is definitely part of the government (i.e. Establishment). The Anglican Church is certainly part of the government (i.e. Establishment). The Queen is the head of it, for goodness sake.
It's not an analogy. I was defining what I meant by "government", but the discussion is confusing because that word has a more specific meaning to you in the UK. I presume that the monarchy is considered to be part of the establishment in the UK. If not, then I am using the wrong word again. Is there a better word I should be using for the people "in charge"?
Nobody would dispute that the BBC is part of the establishment. So is the Anglican church. But the establishment is not the government.
Right, this turned out to be a semantic misunderstanding. In the US, the term "government" is used to describe what you call the "establishment". In your preferred terminology, I was never arguing that the BBC was a part of the government - which it clearly is not as a Royal Charter. I still don't know why this would matter to the common man, who has to pay for the BBC even if they only want to watch ITV.
So I have been told that the American "government" is roughly equivalent to the British term "establishment".
So, to frame it in UK terms: the people would exist with or without The Establishment. The Queen is part of The Establishment, and cannot exist without it. If, say, a revolt abolished The Establishment... you might have a very short period of anarchy, but a new Establishment or several new Establishments would soon take its place.
Whether it helps my point or not, it at least gets us out of the silly semantic argument we ended up in. I still think that, to the common person, it matters little who is taking the broadcast fee. It still amounts to someone else imposing their will upon them.
The license fee is set by the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, i.e. the Government, not the BBC.
Doesn't that make them even more government-affiliated?
Yes you are mistaken. There are other TV broadcasters, ITV and Channel 4 for example.
Oopps! Forgot about ITV. Where would we be without Who Want to Be a Millionaire and X-Factor/American Idol?:) Sorry. Indeed that damages my point...
The Ministry for Television and Radio would be part of the government, the BBC isn't, it's independant.
I was told by another person that I'm using the wrong language for the UK, and I should say "the establishment". So what I mean is, the BBC is part of the establishment.
I was trying to be funny... though the British "establishment" is much more nebulous than the American one. A couple of years ago, Parliament released a delineation of the powers of the crown... it was surprising how much power the Queen still technically has, though I doubt anyone would take here seriously if she tried to exercise any of them in a non-ceremonial way.
I live in the US, and we rely heavily on English Common Law, except in Louisiana where they use Napoleonic Law.
Slashdot Mirror
They also make Airheads candy and Sleeping-With-The-Boss sodas.
I was not clear.
Pension funds should be fully-funded. That is the "spirit" of the law that I was talking about. It is immoral to promise employees future benefits for two reasons: you will not be around to guarantee those benefits, and it pushes the burden of your promises on to future generations. Things like bond-financed infrastructure do this as well, but at least the future generation gets the benefit of the infrastructure. A pension obligation gives them nothing.
In the case of the Post Office, they converted a pay-as-you-go system to a prepaid system almost overnight, which is absurd. I agree with the goal, but not with the execution.
Except that they are pretty much a monopoly in their markets. If you are lucky, you have competing service through your cable company, which is probably already capped and for many will be Time Warner.
How hard is it to kick off municipal broadband, anyway?
You are maybe thinking of BitTorrent?
No, you can't deliver any regular letters at all except for urgent stuff. Private Express Statutes
"No one" besides the government has pensions, and most of the government pensions are chronically underfunded. While I think the USPS pension requirement is being absurdly handled, the spirit of the law is reasonable enough - don't let politicians push the problem down the road. If you want to provide an employee benefit, then pay for the damn benefit rather than adding to our debt.
Well, fair's fair... UPS and FedEx are not allowed to deliver the real gravy: bulk advertisements.
IIRC, you can be fined for using UPS and FedEx for any document that could have gone via USPS.
Presuming that you will fly SOME kind of jet, you need to subtract the cost of maintaining and updating the current fleet for the time period that you used to come up with the $59 billion... I'd bet that those 30 year old F-15s start to get pretty spendy when they are 50 or 60 years old and have triple their designed airframe hours.
Using
Silverlight to play
Entertainment from
Netflix?
Exciting!
Tell me more!
1. A Ponzi scheme is a specific type of pyramid scheme, and the only one that makes sense in this context. I was answering a claim that it is a pyramid scheme. It could be some other kind of scam, I suppose, but the grandparent did not make such a claim.
2. It is clear that they are expanding upon the "possible win-win outcomes", not making concrete predictions about the future.
3. If Bitcoin proves to be deflationary, it will fail. People do not part with things that increase in value. 10 years ago people were treating Beanie Babies like they were gold - a few months ago, my neighbor gave my kids a black yard bag full of them in mint condition - still had their tags! If people treat Bitcoins like Beanie Babies, they will fail as a currency.
I think Bitcoin could find a niche as a universal electronic exchange currency, if regulators allow it. My risk will be low because I won't hold on to it very long - just exchange dollars for Bitcoins, make my purchase, and hold little or no balance. I do this currently with a prepaid credit card... if Bitcoin can be made as easy to use as a prepaid credit card, it will do fine. If regulators decide to make it illegal to buy Bitcoins at Walgreens, it will fail.
I don't know if you can call it a scam when they cover that in their FAQ. Even if you disagree, they are transparent about it:
Yes, Brits apparently use the word "establishment" to refer to what Americans mean when they say "government". So, just replace "establishment" for "government" in all my posts.
Similarly, we use different meanings when we say "constitution". The Americans refer to a very specific document or set of documents, whereas the British use it to describe the traditions, documents, and precedents that they use to run their country.
Ironically, they are just know starting to produce technically good products.
I'm no Microsoft fan (Windows 8 has my ire up currently), but some versions of Windows have been solid. Windows 98SE was a very nice blend of stability and speed. Windows 2000 was bulletproof. Windows XP was very strong after SP2. Windows 7 is actually a nice upgrade as well.
Office has a more checkered past. It has improved with age, but the ribbon gives it a major ding.
That's how the Palm models originally worked, though with battery-backed ram instead of flash.
I've been told by others that I should use the word "establishment" when talking to people from the UK when referring to what Americans call "government". That seems to be the main source of confusion in this thread. In other words, change my original post to say that the BBC is part of the establishment. My whole point was that it doesn't really matter who runs the BBC, so long as an individual is compelled to pay the fee it's all the same.
Hey! You took my smiley off!
In fact, even the US doesn't completely rely on our constitution - we fall back on quite a bit of English Common Law. It would be nearly impossible to start from scratch.
Uh, just because you "can afford" something doesn't mean you want to pay it!
I'm at work or home 99% of the time, where there is ubiquitous WiFi. I only need about 100 minutes on my cell plan (in reality I use more like 200 because I haven't trained everyone to dial my Google Voice number).
WiFi calling lets me get a $30/month T-Mobile prepay plan with 5G data rather than paying double that just to get more minutes.
I was never arguing that the BBC was a part of the government
Yes you were.
Yes, but I was using a different definition of government than the people from the UK - thus the confusion. I'm American, so I was using the word as an American would. Substitute the word "government" with "establishment" and my comment comes across in the way I intended to a person from the UK.
Any society that needs the queen's approval to make charter decisions is definitely part of the government (i.e. Establishment). The Anglican Church is certainly part of the government (i.e. Establishment). The Queen is the head of it, for goodness sake.
It's not an analogy. I was defining what I meant by "government", but the discussion is confusing because that word has a more specific meaning to you in the UK. I presume that the monarchy is considered to be part of the establishment in the UK. If not, then I am using the wrong word again. Is there a better word I should be using for the people "in charge"?
Nobody would dispute that the BBC is part of the establishment. So is the Anglican church. But the establishment is not the government.
Right, this turned out to be a semantic misunderstanding. In the US, the term "government" is used to describe what you call the "establishment". In your preferred terminology, I was never arguing that the BBC was a part of the government - which it clearly is not as a Royal Charter. I still don't know why this would matter to the common man, who has to pay for the BBC even if they only want to watch ITV.
So I have been told that the American "government" is roughly equivalent to the British term "establishment".
So, to frame it in UK terms: the people would exist with or without The Establishment. The Queen is part of The Establishment, and cannot exist without it. If, say, a revolt abolished The Establishment... you might have a very short period of anarchy, but a new Establishment or several new Establishments would soon take its place.
I was told to use the word "establishment" to end the semantic craziness.
Whether it helps my point or not, it at least gets us out of the silly semantic argument we ended up in. I still think that, to the common person, it matters little who is taking the broadcast fee. It still amounts to someone else imposing their will upon them.
The license fee is set by the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, i.e. the Government, not the BBC.
Doesn't that make them even more government-affiliated?
Yes you are mistaken. There are other TV broadcasters, ITV and Channel 4 for example.
Oopps! Forgot about ITV. Where would we be without Who Want to Be a Millionaire and X-Factor/American Idol? :) Sorry. Indeed that damages my point...
The Ministry for Television and Radio would be part of the government, the BBC isn't, it's independant.
I was told by another person that I'm using the wrong language for the UK, and I should say "the establishment". So what I mean is, the BBC is part of the establishment.
I was trying to be funny... though the British "establishment" is much more nebulous than the American one. A couple of years ago, Parliament released a delineation of the powers of the crown... it was surprising how much power the Queen still technically has, though I doubt anyone would take here seriously if she tried to exercise any of them in a non-ceremonial way.
I live in the US, and we rely heavily on English Common Law, except in Louisiana where they use Napoleonic Law.