I prefer MM/DD/YYYY because it seems to be easiest to sort. Year is so broad it often doesn't eliminate anything, so you want it on the end so that the year bits are the last you have to sort. Day is too specific and doesn't sort related possibilities together. Month gives a balance and is also used as the key for many real world systems that care about date like many legal and financial instruments. So you lead with month, fall back to day, then finally year. Best balance of search-ability and sort-ability.
"But I rather expect that when you can specify you want a smart child"
Since this is almost entirely dictated by the result of experience and self programming rather than nature I doubt there ever will be such a button. Not that we are anywhere near far enough along in our understanding of genetics to screen embryos. The result is essentially genocide and we don't know what other things could be affected by the removal of "unwanted" genes.
Thank you sir. And since fish do not have outboard motors we have now proven that there is no god. Unless someone wants to contend that outboard motor designers simply have a better understanding of fluids than god?
You really shouldn't post if you can't be bothered to read the comments above yours. This has been discussed at least half a dozen times in the threads above.
His decoding of the data gives specific information about german troops present on a specific day and time in history at a particular location. At least some of it should be verifiable.
In 17 minutes he certainly wouldn't have time to find a set of conditions that matched the acronyms he was claiming.
"Either your idiot, you don't know the difference between 2 and 5 or can't read."
I believe your problem is the third. I said my 2 year old desktop doesn't need upgraded, not that it can be upgraded. And it will be upgradable at the 5-6 yr mark.
So, if his desktop NEEDS an upgrade at 2-3yrs he is doing it wrong. If his desktop can't be upgraded at 5yrs he is doing it wrong. You on the hand weren't just wrong but a dick besides.
Sorry but you aren't doing it right. My 2 year old desktop runs every graphic intensive game I've thrown at it on max settings. It sounds like you are doing a poor job selecting motherboards and possibly gpus if you need an upgrade at 2-3yrs. With a motherboard it isn't enough to buy something expensive. You need to be forward looking and buy something that has the ability to run not just the affordable chips and cards you are actually buying but can also run the top of the line just released yesterday and stupidly expensive gear. That will get you the latest sockets and ports.
The same is true of GPU's. Spending top dollar will generally get you something good but there is usually a card out there that they screwed up and made too fast. The newest model will be a gimp'd version of the old model instead of a higher performance card. The market usually catches on eventually
All the debit cards I've had in the states in the last 10 years were either visa or mastercard. Slide card, confirm total, enter pin, decide if you need cash for one of those annoying places that require it. There is processing but it is nearly instant so not really worth listing, faster than me counting out some cash let alone the cashier fumbling in the drawer for change.
You also aren't counting the time it takes to get the cash in the first place. With everyone doing direct deposit they press a button and money is instantly credited to your account and you can instantly spend it with your card.
Cash is definitely not quicker than a debit card. No interaction, no counting or making change, just swipe and enter a pin number.
The other point about the loonies is exactly why a dollar coin is a bad idea. I'm willing to contribute my 50 cents a year to keep the paper dollar. If I've got that much change in my pocket I'd give it to a beggar (and often do) rather than carry it around.
You have yet to establish any cause for believing the change would do any significant lasting good in the first place or prevent any substantial inflation. This great good you think is worth overriding the will of the people amounts to less than a penny a week.
"If you believe otherwise, then it would make sense for any elected government to also, for example, eliminate taxation... since most people are opposed to that as well. But truthfully, such a move would not actually be in the best long term interests of the nation."
Your asserting something does not magically transform your opinion into fact. Whether or not taxation is in the best long term interests of the people is a matter of opinion and not fact. Personally I am opposed to an income tax. I believe that competition is good. With a weaker federal government that must get its operating funds from the states the states are stronger and therefore more likely to have varied laws and policies whereas now they are mostly clones. That means the individual gains the ability to vote by moving to the state that more closely matches his views and thereby we have states competing. States in turn would compete with policies more desirable to the people so that they would gain their skills and the ability to derive revenues from a state level tax. I think that tax should be based on wealth and not sales or income. You tax the man who ends up with the wealth. Taxes discourage or encourage activity. Why would you discourage creating wealth by drawing income or stimulating the fluidity of wealth by punishing spending, when you can discourage the hoarding and accumulating of wealth? Which fiscal policy ultimately results in a more even distribution of national assets?
However, I am fairly certain that you are incorrect. My opinion is a minority opinion. The vast majority of the populace may not like taxes but actually believes taxation to be necessary. The reason you hear so many people complaining about taxation is that most of those opposed to it are wealthy and the wealthy have a much louder voice. Taxation rarely benefits the wealthy. For the wealthy it is better to lose the economy of scale and pay a premium for the services they personally need than to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the services needed by all the people who actually performed the labor needed to generate their wealth.
Yes they do. Most coin sorter machines can detect the lighter Canadian coins and spit them out as rejects. Maybe the difference is that historically American currency is actually worth more than Canadian so it would make sense for Canadian stores to take the more valuable American currency but would not make sense for American stores to take the less valuable Canadian.
First of all being sickly isn't a crime you inconsiderate bastard. And Sickly has nothing to do with it. Not wanting your pants to try to fall down defines heavy in this case.
First of all $2 bills exist but are not in common circulation so lets not pretend you can go exchanging for them left and right. And why would you want to exchange for $5 bills when you could just keep $1 bills for less than 50 cents a year? That 4 billion crap was a hyper inflated number derived by adding up the savings over 30 years. I'd give the 50 cents to avoid having change in my pocket even one day (in fact I have, many bums are happy that they were around when I found I had annoying change in my pocket) let alone to avoid it for 365!
"That's not a good enough reason to not do something that is otherwise quite beneficial."
Who are you to make that determination? Who says the reason was that people are adverse to change? Exactly what is this supposed benefit? Coins are less desirable a format than bills and there isn't really a significant cost savings.
"new type of foldable curency that... would thus render the financial reasons for switching to the coin in the first place as correspondingly much less significant"
That is impressive considering how insignificant they were in the first place!
"much of the Canada's modern population would apparently now actually *resist* the reintroduction of the $1 bill"
In other words people want to leave well enough alone. You think negating this opinion is worth dissolving the idea of democracy? Interesting view.
If you support the idea of democracy there is no such thing as a time when it is justified for a government ruled by the people to ignore their orders.
The problem is that you can't make people fit for work for longer just for the sake of making of numbers working out. It won't work as well as you think anyway. Our SS retirement age is already far higher than employers will actually tolerate and the result is pressed early retirement.
"The point of the change was not to adopt to what people preferred"
If you have a democracy the point of every change is to adopt what the people prefer. If the people prefer saving money you use coins if they prefer paper bills you do that instead. It is after all their money and they may spend it on paper bills if they wish. Otherwise, stop pretending you are a democracy.
"The coin's longevity was desirable..." to someone who thought their desires trumped that of the population of Canada.
The purpose of the government is to serve AND obey the people. It is not the place of the government to decide they know better than the people. Are things so out of whack in Canada that they've forgotten that the people and not government bean counters decide what is desirable? That truly is looney.
According to these estimates this would save a measly $133 million a year. That certainly isn't enough to justify forcing people to haul around bulky and heavy bits of metal in their pockets. I know I'm willing to chip in my mere 50 cents a year to avoid having to haul around pockets full of change. It is the nations that have gotten so miserly they've implemented such a measure that have fallen behind.
At $133 million a year this isn't likely to bring us a balanced budget the 4 billion is spread over 30 years. That wouldn't even be a significant line item in the budget of a major city in the US let alone the federal government.
Spending an extra 50 cents per person each year to avoid carrying around pockets full of bulky metal seems more than reasonable. I'd argue that the nations that think having done this already makes them 'ahead' and that not having done so makes the US 'behind' need to re-evaluate their priorities.
It isn't the place of government to pander to the people. It is the place of government to do what its told by them.
Some people aren't afraid of change but rather genuinely prefer not to have coins of significant value so they have to haul around pockets full of heavy bulky objects that spill out when they fish for keys. Especially to save a pathetic $130 million a year. I think it is safe to say most of us enjoy not having any good reason to carry any change in our pockets most of the time and would be willing to contribute our less than 50 cents a year to avoid the need to start.
You could divide your dollars into smaller units and leave your gold value alone. The division of gold is finite. The resistance to moving the decimal on the currency is silly. Why people think that the math somehow works if you have a decimal that slides in one direction but doesn't work if the decimal slides the other direction I have no idea.
The only real difference is that it becomes more obvious and easy to calculate how much your purchasing power is changing.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer MM/DD/YYYY because it seems to be easiest to sort. Year is so broad it often doesn't eliminate anything, so you want it on the end so that the year bits are the last you have to sort. Day is too specific and doesn't sort related possibilities together. Month gives a balance and is also used as the key for many real world systems that care about date like many legal and financial instruments. So you lead with month, fall back to day, then finally year. Best balance of search-ability and sort-ability.
"But I rather expect that when you can specify you want a smart child"
Since this is almost entirely dictated by the result of experience and self programming rather than nature I doubt there ever will be such a button. Not that we are anywhere near far enough along in our understanding of genetics to screen embryos. The result is essentially genocide and we don't know what other things could be affected by the removal of "unwanted" genes.
Thank you sir. And since fish do not have outboard motors we have now proven that there is no god. Unless someone wants to contend that outboard motor designers simply have a better understanding of fluids than god?
He is a Flying Spaghetti Monster not a Flying Rigatoni Monster.
You really shouldn't post if you can't be bothered to read the comments above yours. This has been discussed at least half a dozen times in the threads above.
His decoding of the data gives specific information about german troops present on a specific day and time in history at a particular location. At least some of it should be verifiable.
In 17 minutes he certainly wouldn't have time to find a set of conditions that matched the acronyms he was claiming.
"Either your idiot, you don't know the difference between 2 and 5 or can't read."
I believe your problem is the third. I said my 2 year old desktop doesn't need upgraded, not that it can be upgraded. And it will be upgradable at the 5-6 yr mark.
So, if his desktop NEEDS an upgrade at 2-3yrs he is doing it wrong. If his desktop can't be upgraded at 5yrs he is doing it wrong. You on the hand weren't just wrong but a dick besides.
Sorry but you aren't doing it right. My 2 year old desktop runs every graphic intensive game I've thrown at it on max settings. It sounds like you are doing a poor job selecting motherboards and possibly gpus if you need an upgrade at 2-3yrs. With a motherboard it isn't enough to buy something expensive. You need to be forward looking and buy something that has the ability to run not just the affordable chips and cards you are actually buying but can also run the top of the line just released yesterday and stupidly expensive gear. That will get you the latest sockets and ports.
The same is true of GPU's. Spending top dollar will generally get you something good but there is usually a card out there that they screwed up and made too fast. The newest model will be a gimp'd version of the old model instead of a higher performance card. The market usually catches on eventually
All the debit cards I've had in the states in the last 10 years were either visa or mastercard. Slide card, confirm total, enter pin, decide if you need cash for one of those annoying places that require it. There is processing but it is nearly instant so not really worth listing, faster than me counting out some cash let alone the cashier fumbling in the drawer for change.
You also aren't counting the time it takes to get the cash in the first place. With everyone doing direct deposit they press a button and money is instantly credited to your account and you can instantly spend it with your card.
Cash is definitely not quicker than a debit card. No interaction, no counting or making change, just swipe and enter a pin number.
The other point about the loonies is exactly why a dollar coin is a bad idea. I'm willing to contribute my 50 cents a year to keep the paper dollar. If I've got that much change in my pocket I'd give it to a beggar (and often do) rather than carry it around.
You have yet to establish any cause for believing the change would do any significant lasting good in the first place or prevent any substantial inflation. This great good you think is worth overriding the will of the people amounts to less than a penny a week.
"If you believe otherwise, then it would make sense for any elected government to also, for example, eliminate taxation... since most people are opposed to that as well. But truthfully, such a move would not actually be in the best long term interests of the nation."
Your asserting something does not magically transform your opinion into fact. Whether or not taxation is in the best long term interests of the people is a matter of opinion and not fact. Personally I am opposed to an income tax. I believe that competition is good. With a weaker federal government that must get its operating funds from the states the states are stronger and therefore more likely to have varied laws and policies whereas now they are mostly clones. That means the individual gains the ability to vote by moving to the state that more closely matches his views and thereby we have states competing. States in turn would compete with policies more desirable to the people so that they would gain their skills and the ability to derive revenues from a state level tax. I think that tax should be based on wealth and not sales or income. You tax the man who ends up with the wealth. Taxes discourage or encourage activity. Why would you discourage creating wealth by drawing income or stimulating the fluidity of wealth by punishing spending, when you can discourage the hoarding and accumulating of wealth? Which fiscal policy ultimately results in a more even distribution of national assets?
However, I am fairly certain that you are incorrect. My opinion is a minority opinion. The vast majority of the populace may not like taxes but actually believes taxation to be necessary. The reason you hear so many people complaining about taxation is that most of those opposed to it are wealthy and the wealthy have a much louder voice. Taxation rarely benefits the wealthy. For the wealthy it is better to lose the economy of scale and pay a premium for the services they personally need than to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the services needed by all the people who actually performed the labor needed to generate their wealth.
Considering that the top 1% has more than 90% of the wealth in the nation, it seems reasonable to call them wealth hoarders.
Yes they do. Most coin sorter machines can detect the lighter Canadian coins and spit them out as rejects. Maybe the difference is that historically American currency is actually worth more than Canadian so it would make sense for Canadian stores to take the more valuable American currency but would not make sense for American stores to take the less valuable Canadian.
They might be more tolerant closer to the border.
First of all being sickly isn't a crime you inconsiderate bastard. And Sickly has nothing to do with it. Not wanting your pants to try to fall down defines heavy in this case.
First of all $2 bills exist but are not in common circulation so lets not pretend you can go exchanging for them left and right. And why would you want to exchange for $5 bills when you could just keep $1 bills for less than 50 cents a year? That 4 billion crap was a hyper inflated number derived by adding up the savings over 30 years. I'd give the 50 cents to avoid having change in my pocket even one day (in fact I have, many bums are happy that they were around when I found I had annoying change in my pocket) let alone to avoid it for 365!
The cost savings is less than 50 cents per person per year. That isn't enough to justify changing much of anything.
"That's not a good enough reason to not do something that is otherwise quite beneficial."
Who are you to make that determination? Who says the reason was that people are adverse to change? Exactly what is this supposed benefit? Coins are less desirable a format than bills and there isn't really a significant cost savings.
"new type of foldable curency that... would thus render the financial reasons for switching to the coin in the first place as correspondingly much less significant"
That is impressive considering how insignificant they were in the first place!
"much of the Canada's modern population would apparently now actually *resist* the reintroduction of the $1 bill"
In other words people want to leave well enough alone. You think negating this opinion is worth dissolving the idea of democracy? Interesting view.
If you support the idea of democracy there is no such thing as a time when it is justified for a government ruled by the people to ignore their orders.
The problem is that you can't make people fit for work for longer just for the sake of making of numbers working out. It won't work as well as you think anyway. Our SS retirement age is already far higher than employers will actually tolerate and the result is pressed early retirement.
"The point of the change was not to adopt to what people preferred"
If you have a democracy the point of every change is to adopt what the people prefer. If the people prefer saving money you use coins if they prefer paper bills you do that instead. It is after all their money and they may spend it on paper bills if they wish. Otherwise, stop pretending you are a democracy.
"The coin's longevity was desirable..." to someone who thought their desires trumped that of the population of Canada.
The purpose of the government is to serve AND obey the people. It is not the place of the government to decide they know better than the people. Are things so out of whack in Canada that they've forgotten that the people and not government bean counters decide what is desirable? That truly is looney.
According to these estimates this would save a measly $133 million a year. That certainly isn't enough to justify forcing people to haul around bulky and heavy bits of metal in their pockets. I know I'm willing to chip in my mere 50 cents a year to avoid having to haul around pockets full of change. It is the nations that have gotten so miserly they've implemented such a measure that have fallen behind.
At $133 million a year this isn't likely to bring us a balanced budget the 4 billion is spread over 30 years. That wouldn't even be a significant line item in the budget of a major city in the US let alone the federal government.
Spending an extra 50 cents per person each year to avoid carrying around pockets full of bulky metal seems more than reasonable. I'd argue that the nations that think having done this already makes them 'ahead' and that not having done so makes the US 'behind' need to re-evaluate their priorities.
It isn't the place of government to pander to the people. It is the place of government to do what its told by them.
Some people aren't afraid of change but rather genuinely prefer not to have coins of significant value so they have to haul around pockets full of heavy bulky objects that spill out when they fish for keys. Especially to save a pathetic $130 million a year. I think it is safe to say most of us enjoy not having any good reason to carry any change in our pockets most of the time and would be willing to contribute our less than 50 cents a year to avoid the need to start.
It is 4 billion over 30 years!
You could divide your dollars into smaller units and leave your gold value alone. The division of gold is finite. The resistance to moving the decimal on the currency is silly. Why people think that the math somehow works if you have a decimal that slides in one direction but doesn't work if the decimal slides the other direction I have no idea.
The only real difference is that it becomes more obvious and easy to calculate how much your purchasing power is changing.
The scarcity of gold makes it a poor and short sighted use for said industrial purposes.
Not stupid enough to want their funds in a bulky, heavy, and inconvenient form?
I hate the idea of introducing another coin. I'd rather introduce paper units to replace the coins we've got.
That said, stop being cheap and giving an allowance under $5.