Also, let's not forget the fact that it is easier and less dangerous for the government to pursue a well-meaning law-abiding company than scary terrorists. So instead of going after people who may have guns or other weapons, the government can just go after the victims of the terrorists, who were threatened with significant property and/or business viability damage if they did not pay the amount.
This harkens back to the days of "protection money" where the mob would collect money from businesses, and if the businesses did not pay, the mob would burn the place down. Except in the old days, I don't think the police would have arrested the shop owner for being a victim of the mob.
My electricity company is totally cool with charging me at the end of the month for a very specific usage figure... and you know what? I've never complained about or felt like I was getting the raw end of a deal.
Well, I for one would be more than happy to go metered as well. Rather than pay $40 for an unlimited amount whether I use it or not, I would happily go to a plan where they charge a reasonable amount per GB and you just pay that. 50 cents a GB seems like a reasonable amount to pay.
This is good news. You see I have an unlimited data plan with Verizon and my bill is about $60 a month. With this new 2 GB cap plan, they must surely be offering it at a much lower price than the unlimited plan, and so I should be able to switch and save money.
I was kind of confused by this article, too, since according to my bill, most of the extra fees are "FCC Mandated" fees. Of course, what they don't tell you is that it is mandated that the carrier pay the fee to the FCC, but is in no way mandated that the user pay the fee to the carrier, other than mandated by the carrier of course.
Government regulation would not be required if we would just stand up for our rights as consumers and refuse to buy the services, however, we convince ourselves that we "need" to have a cell phone and we gripe and moan about the charges, but continue to pay them because we say there is no alternative. There IS an alternative. We CAN live without cell phones, and if we DID decide to do without, then pretty soon the cell phone companies would have to start offering reasonable contracts in order to get a sale.
Well, that is a simple matter of making the cell phone companies adhere to the same rigorous rules as the credit card companies, whose exact service they are duplicating without the liability of being regulated. Once the cell companies are required to adhere to those rules, they will have to investigate questionable charges at great expense, and will stop partnering together with third party shysters who give them 1/3 of the booty.
If "everyone makes mistakes" is true, then on the average, you should sometimes underpay and sometimes overpay. Since underpayment does not ever seem to be an issue, I have to classify these charges as "not a mistake" and instead as "a deliberate act to try to get customers to pay for something they did not use".
A site that I have an account on that sells plumbing fixtures and parts, was also hacked and my e-mail address has gotten into the hands of scammers. Clearly, plumbing fixtures are a bad idea, and I urge you all to avoid purchasing, using, or owning any kind of plumbing fixture.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
Off topic, but what do you do about places that won't accept cash? They are relatively seldom, but they do exist. Is it illegal for them to not take cash due to what is written on the cash? As an example, I have been to some restaurants that won't take cash, I have also read that some airlines won't take cash, insurance companies, and I found a reference that said Apple wouldn't take cash for an ipad.
To expand further, I have yet to see an article in slashdot that paints bitcoin in a positive light. If anything I would salshdot is trying its best to kill bitcoin, as apparently are the DDOS attackers, hackers, trojan writers and probably also various governments.
According to Wikipedia "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment, services or ideals, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme or training them to take part, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public."
Clearly Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme. Nobody is promising anybody payments, and certainly not payments for signing anybody else into the scheme. Also, there is nowhere to sign up. There is no cost for entry or exit. Bitcoin is quite simply just a currency, one that some people accept and most people don't, but the people who are promoting Bitcoin would like for more people to accept it.
Why would you keep that type of cash in bitcoin? Anyone with half a brain would at least put that kind of money in a savings account to get interest.
Interest on that kind of money is still only a couple of percent a year in our current economy. I believe the holder of this money expects that bitcoin will appreciate by more than 1% annually against the dollar and so that is why they are holding it in bitcoin.
This is really the same thing as foreign exchange trading. If people think the dollar is going to fall against the yen, then they will be yen, and hold it until they decide it is better to hold dollars again.
Quite simple: Neither can be called a Ponzi scheme because neither involves paying back early investors money using the resource of new investors money.
Any currency compared to itself is going to be worth exactly the same amount five minutes later. 10 BTC is also going to be worth 10BTC in five minutes. The only way to measure fluctuation of a value is in comparison with another currency. The USD fluctuates in comparison with other government backed currencies and 10 minutes from now will be worth a different amount in any other currency. The same can be said for Bitcoin. At the moment, Bitcoin is going to be more volatile because of the limited market and the limited availability. However, it is not going to go from what it is now (about 18.25 per USD) to being worth $1 USD in five minutes.
There is always a possibility that some government or governments will declare Bitcoin illegal, which would undoubtedly cause some serious harm to the value. There is also the possibility that some government may decide to accept it as currency. The more vendors choose to accept it, the more likely that the value will stabilize.
I'm saying that the cost for marine cargo insurance is disproportionate to the risk when compared to other industries.
If they are so disproportionate to the risk, then why does anybody who has any kind of volume use them? Clearly it is cheaper to self insure. Maybe I could see a family moving their stuff in a container buying the insurance, because they can't afford to replace everything in the.005% chance that something happens, but any real shipper could easily absorb the losses at a 2000:1 insurance ratio.
I propose that we fill the ocean with dirt, and then drive our cargo across on trucks.
That's a lot of dirt. I think it would be wiser just to wait until the ocean is full of shipping containers and then just fill in the spaces between the containers.
How about a giant floating conveyor belt system?
I'm pretty sure you are mixing your percentages. The insurance rate is undoubtedly based on the value of the contents, and the.0005% is based on the number of pods lost.
You are undoubtedly correct that the insurance company charges far more than they stand to lose. That is how an insurance company makes money. If it is that big an issue to you, you are free to self-insure, and just live with the loss. The only reason to use insurance at all is if you feel that the chance of a loss being greater than your ability to absorb justifies the overhead cost of purchasing insurance.
No one has to pay to produce amateur porn. They just set up a video cam and shoot (no pun intended). And who wants to watch used up professional porn stars anyway?
My thinking is that I would never pay for porn because I would want proof that they actually have what they say the have. If there is none out there for free, I would think that the ratio of paid for stuff of the same type is probably in the same range.
You mean you don't watch the movies for the amazing acting and intriguing plot?
Well, you sure wouldn't be watching it to try to get excited about the actors/actresses themselves. They kind of look like, well, porn stars or something.
With a 1170 cc 4-stroke engine delivering 80 kW driving two ducted propellers, the inventor of the Hoverbike, Chris Malloy,
Wow, those are some impressive stats. He should be able to hover even WITHOUT the hoverbike.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, let's not forget the fact that it is easier and less dangerous for the government to pursue a well-meaning law-abiding company than scary terrorists. So instead of going after people who may have guns or other weapons, the government can just go after the victims of the terrorists, who were threatened with significant property and/or business viability damage if they did not pay the amount.
This harkens back to the days of "protection money" where the mob would collect money from businesses, and if the businesses did not pay, the mob would burn the place down. Except in the old days, I don't think the police would have arrested the shop owner for being a victim of the mob.
My electricity company is totally cool with charging me at the end of the month for a very specific usage figure ... and you know what? I've never complained about or felt like I was getting the raw end of a deal.
Well, I for one would be more than happy to go metered as well. Rather than pay $40 for an unlimited amount whether I use it or not, I would happily go to a plan where they charge a reasonable amount per GB and you just pay that. 50 cents a GB seems like a reasonable amount to pay.
This is good news. You see I have an unlimited data plan with Verizon and my bill is about $60 a month. With this new 2 GB cap plan, they must surely be offering it at a much lower price than the unlimited plan, and so I should be able to switch and save money.
Cell phones give you cancer!!!
No, they give you high blood pressure and anxiety.
I was kind of confused by this article, too, since according to my bill, most of the extra fees are "FCC Mandated" fees. Of course, what they don't tell you is that it is mandated that the carrier pay the fee to the FCC, but is in no way mandated that the user pay the fee to the carrier, other than mandated by the carrier of course.
Government regulation would not be required if we would just stand up for our rights as consumers and refuse to buy the services, however, we convince ourselves that we "need" to have a cell phone and we gripe and moan about the charges, but continue to pay them because we say there is no alternative. There IS an alternative. We CAN live without cell phones, and if we DID decide to do without, then pretty soon the cell phone companies would have to start offering reasonable contracts in order to get a sale.
Well, that is a simple matter of making the cell phone companies adhere to the same rigorous rules as the credit card companies, whose exact service they are duplicating without the liability of being regulated. Once the cell companies are required to adhere to those rules, they will have to investigate questionable charges at great expense, and will stop partnering together with third party shysters who give them 1/3 of the booty.
If "everyone makes mistakes" is true, then on the average, you should sometimes underpay and sometimes overpay. Since underpayment does not ever seem to be an issue, I have to classify these charges as "not a mistake" and instead as "a deliberate act to try to get customers to pay for something they did not use".
A site that I have an account on that sells plumbing fixtures and parts, was also hacked and my e-mail address has gotten into the hands of scammers. Clearly, plumbing fixtures are a bad idea, and I urge you all to avoid purchasing, using, or owning any kind of plumbing fixture.
Off topic, but what do you do about places that won't accept cash? They are relatively seldom, but they do exist. Is it illegal for them to not take cash due to what is written on the cash? As an example, I have been to some restaurants that won't take cash, I have also read that some airlines won't take cash, insurance companies, and I found a reference that said Apple wouldn't take cash for an ipad.
To expand further, I have yet to see an article in slashdot that paints bitcoin in a positive light. If anything I would salshdot is trying its best to kill bitcoin, as apparently are the DDOS attackers, hackers, trojan writers and probably also various governments.
According to Wikipedia "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment, services or ideals, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme or training them to take part, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public."
Clearly Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme. Nobody is promising anybody payments, and certainly not payments for signing anybody else into the scheme. Also, there is nowhere to sign up. There is no cost for entry or exit. Bitcoin is quite simply just a currency, one that some people accept and most people don't, but the people who are promoting Bitcoin would like for more people to accept it.
Why would you keep that type of cash in bitcoin? Anyone with half a brain would at least put that kind of money in a savings account to get interest.
Interest on that kind of money is still only a couple of percent a year in our current economy. I believe the holder of this money expects that bitcoin will appreciate by more than 1% annually against the dollar and so that is why they are holding it in bitcoin.
This is really the same thing as foreign exchange trading. If people think the dollar is going to fall against the yen, then they will be yen, and hold it until they decide it is better to hold dollars again.
Quite simple: Neither can be called a Ponzi scheme because neither involves paying back early investors money using the resource of new investors money.
Any currency compared to itself is going to be worth exactly the same amount five minutes later. 10 BTC is also going to be worth 10BTC in five minutes. The only way to measure fluctuation of a value is in comparison with another currency. The USD fluctuates in comparison with other government backed currencies and 10 minutes from now will be worth a different amount in any other currency. The same can be said for Bitcoin. At the moment, Bitcoin is going to be more volatile because of the limited market and the limited availability. However, it is not going to go from what it is now (about 18.25 per USD) to being worth $1 USD in five minutes.
There is always a possibility that some government or governments will declare Bitcoin illegal, which would undoubtedly cause some serious harm to the value. There is also the possibility that some government may decide to accept it as currency. The more vendors choose to accept it, the more likely that the value will stabilize.
I'm saying that the cost for marine cargo insurance is disproportionate to the risk when compared to other industries. .005% chance that something happens, but any real shipper could easily absorb the losses at a 2000:1 insurance ratio.
If they are so disproportionate to the risk, then why does anybody who has any kind of volume use them? Clearly it is cheaper to self insure. Maybe I could see a family moving their stuff in a container buying the insurance, because they can't afford to replace everything in the
How small of a pirate vessel and wouldn't the fact that it had a 30 ton crane on it be a little obvious?
I propose that we fill the ocean with dirt, and then drive our cargo across on trucks.
That's a lot of dirt. I think it would be wiser just to wait until the ocean is full of shipping containers and then just fill in the spaces between the containers.
How about a giant floating conveyor belt system?
I'm pretty sure you are mixing your percentages. The insurance rate is undoubtedly based on the value of the contents, and the .0005% is based on the number of pods lost.
You are undoubtedly correct that the insurance company charges far more than they stand to lose. That is how an insurance company makes money. If it is that big an issue to you, you are free to self-insure, and just live with the loss. The only reason to use insurance at all is if you feel that the chance of a loss being greater than your ability to absorb justifies the overhead cost of purchasing insurance.
How would a signal transmit from 1000M below sea floor?
You would probably need to use very low frequencies and very high power.
No one has to pay to produce amateur porn. They just set up a video cam and shoot (no pun intended). And who wants to watch used up professional porn stars anyway?
Find any fat balding middle aged guy. Chances are greater than 75% that someone found him attractive enough to marry him.
My thinking is that I would never pay for porn because I would want proof that they actually have what they say the have. If there is none out there for free, I would think that the ratio of paid for stuff of the same type is probably in the same range.
You mean you don't watch the movies for the amazing acting and intriguing plot?
Well, you sure wouldn't be watching it to try to get excited about the actors/actresses themselves. They kind of look like, well, porn stars or something.
With a 1170 cc 4-stroke engine delivering 80 kW driving two ducted propellers, the inventor of the Hoverbike, Chris Malloy,
Wow, those are some impressive stats. He should be able to hover even WITHOUT the hoverbike.