Note I said consumer. I don't have a problem with B2B and business to government negotiating on price. It's expecting consumers to be knowledgeable about what the true price should be, and expecting them to have the skills to haggle that is wrong. All it does is ensures that decent people get ripped off.
As to sales commissions, if they must compete, then let them compete on the number of sales they make, rather than competing on how much they can get people to overpay.
Yes. It's a scandal that Nigel Farage has had more appearances on BBC Question Time since 2009 than any other person. Yet as you say they have no MPs. The green party for example has one MP, so they ought to get more representation on Question Time than UKIP, yet they get far less.
Came back with his quote and said I felt it was a bit high, so he adjusted it, threw in some extras, and still beat what everyone else was offering.
This "make up a figure" pricing system and the need for purchasers to haggle down to the unknown real price is one of the things to hate car dealerships for.
For pretty much everything else consumers buy, other than real estate, there is an advertised genuine price, and different vendors compete openly on that price.
I welcome the fact that Tesla's lack of dealerships means honest pricing.
The only actual features of the lightning connector are that it can be used by people who have suffered too much brain damage to understand spatial orientation
One way sockets that are hard to get the right way around first time annoy people. If you haven't noticed that, then you are very unobservant. If you think that kind of annoyance isn't worth fixing with new sockets, then you are an idiot.
Good plug & socket designs go in the first time, and don't require looking. Take the jack plug as an old, yet excellent example.
When anyone tries to claim that the other news networks are just as bad as Fox News, it's always good to pull out the fact that the viewers of Fox News are the worst informed people there are. Worse informed even than people who don't watch news at all. That's either the degree to which Fox News pundits are misleading people. Or simply a comment on how ignorant you have to be to watch them.
That's not a fix. Fox news pundits are on a whole other level from the other network news channels. A level that's reached by UKIP politicians. It's way more irrational than the average network news pundit.
I think the EU will have to show that either Micro USB can do everything that the Lightning connector can. Or they'd have to show that current phones can fit both a MicroUSB AND a Lightning connector. Or they'd have to allow an adapter between a MicroUSB charger and a lightning connector on a phone.
Otherwise, it'd be the EU regulating to reduce features on a popular device, without any safety rationale for doing so. I don't think that would wash.
Ignore that bit. It's the UK Independence Party (UKIP). They oppose all EU regulations on principle. The reasoning is irrelevant. They're about as rational as Fox News pundits.
If I use "cunt", "fuck" and "shit" for variable names whilst I'm hacking something out, I'll be sure to come back later and give them proper names before I submit the code.
Absolutely. I have made the mistake of believing a library was at fault when it was my code on occasion. But not nearly as often as I've found a genuine bug in a library.
The especially funny thing about Mt Gox is that if they had been a dollars-euros exchange and the same thing had happened (where they disappeared with a bunch of peoples' dollars and euros) I wonder which currency people would blame it on.
Were it a dollars-euros exchange, it would have been regulated.
I specifically spoke about intangible things, so the CD is irrelevant.
Both software and bitcoin are streams of bits. You are categorically stating that taking one is theft and the other isn't. Yet you provide no reasoning nor evidence for that.
The price of a traded intangible such as bitcoin only reflects supply and demand. You have no worthwhile domain knowledge about that until after it's happened. Nor do you have any knowledge of when Bitcoin organisations are going to fail or go rogue, nor what the market reaction will be.
It's certainly a gamble. That you think you can get ahead of the odds is a bad sign for you.
Yes, I'm aware of that other gambler's fallacy to which you refer. It may well have prior call to the name "gambler's fallacy".
Nevertheless the one that I described, of gambler's being vocal when they win, and being silent or lying when they've lost is another one, thus giving the misleading idea that they are successful gamblers when they are not. That is also a gambler's fallacy. You can witness it at any racetrack or casino.
As for the second half of that - If BTC entirely collapsed tomorrow, I've already done better than break even on my original investment.
The point of my description of the gambler's fallacy is that you may well be ahead on this particular gamble (bitcoin) and you are being loud about it. But there will be other gambles in your life, perhaps tech-stocks for examples, that you will have or will lose on, and which you will keep quiet or lie about.
The big truth is that just because you won, doesn't mean it was a good gamble. It only means that on this occasion a random outcome happened to be in your favour. Another time it won't be.
What you seem to be describing is what we currently have with digital fiat.
What I'm saying is that bitcoin like technology could make the transfer of fiat currencies more secure. After all with international transfers, there's no ultimate authority, such as there is with domestic transactions.
I'm certainly not suggesting a government backed GOVcoin competitor to bitcoin. The point of bitcoin is to do an end run around government regulation, so a government backed one would be counterproductive.
If the law cannot keep up, what makes it possible for a statutory agency to do so?
Most obviously right now, the lack of a congress that's dedicated to stopping all executive sponsored legislation.
In general though technical details of technology and products as new ideas come along. And regulation needs to reflect that. Laws take a long time to get through, and on any one particular field, it's years between bills. It's pretty obvious regulators can be faster acting.
Ah yes, another person who is convinced that ALL laws and regulations are good
I've never said anything that could possibly be categorised as that. It's a deliberate mischaracterisation on your part.
if we live in a world where we can depend on government bureaucrats to ONLY implement good regulations, why do we need any regulations?
Which is both a non-sequiteur and makes no sense within itself.
but I do know that England had long ceased to be anything vaguely libertarian by the 1800s.
And there is the illustration of the point I made, that there aren't any examples of libertarian societies to draw such examples from.
Victorian England was certainly a situation where there was very little consumer protection regulation, and that's the reason products were commonly cut with dangerous additives. The same would be true in your imaginary libertarian world.
Can you give similar examples of food adulteration in the U.S.?
Doubtless, if I searched. I gave you England, because that's my country, so I know about it without having to search. You asked for examples I gave them. Now stop moving the goalposts.
Of course, all of your arguments are based on the assumption that I am a libertarian.
ROFL! Everyone here knows full well you're an extreme libertarian. Your posts over the years have been clear. Retreating now?
I said that I believe that if the government had not mandated safety standards for cars, they would be as safe, or safer and they would be less expensive. You use food safety in England as evidence that I am wrong.
Those two things are not directly related. Not even in the same post. My Victorian England examples were in answer to your question: "Can you give me an example of where an insufficiently regulated market resulted in less safety?"
It was most certainly an example of "an insufficiently regulated market that resulted in less safety". The fact that it doesn't reflect what you imagine would happen in an unregulated environment should give you cause to rethink your views. Instead it's causing you to start weaselling out of what you said.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Tesla only sells EVs, it is correct to say "every Tesla".
It's pedantically correct, but disingenuous. The honest thing to say is "every EV".
Tesla any less dependent on federal aid.
And there you go beyond what you can prove. At the price Teslas are selling, an extra $7.5K would be very unlikely kill their market.
And if you didn't mean that, but simply that they receive federal aid, again ALL car companies that sell EVs do.
Note I said consumer. I don't have a problem with B2B and business to government negotiating on price. It's expecting consumers to be knowledgeable about what the true price should be, and expecting them to have the skills to haggle that is wrong. All it does is ensures that decent people get ripped off.
As to sales commissions, if they must compete, then let them compete on the number of sales they make, rather than competing on how much they can get people to overpay.
It's not "every Tesla", it's "every EV". The feds are not picking a company here. They are kick-starting a new technology, regardless who makes it.
The traditional car companies get exactly the same subsidy.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
Yes. It's a scandal that Nigel Farage has had more appearances on BBC Question Time since 2009 than any other person. Yet as you say they have no MPs. The green party for example has one MP, so they ought to get more representation on Question Time than UKIP, yet they get far less.
Came back with his quote and said I felt it was a bit high, so he adjusted it, threw in some extras, and still beat what everyone else was offering.
This "make up a figure" pricing system and the need for purchasers to haggle down to the unknown real price is one of the things to hate car dealerships for.
For pretty much everything else consumers buy, other than real estate, there is an advertised genuine price, and different vendors compete openly on that price.
I welcome the fact that Tesla's lack of dealerships means honest pricing.
The only actual features of the lightning connector are that it can be used by people who have suffered too much brain damage to understand spatial orientation
One way sockets that are hard to get the right way around first time annoy people. If you haven't noticed that, then you are very unobservant. If you think that kind of annoyance isn't worth fixing with new sockets, then you are an idiot.
Good plug & socket designs go in the first time, and don't require looking. Take the jack plug as an old, yet excellent example.
When anyone tries to claim that the other news networks are just as bad as Fox News, it's always good to pull out the fact that the viewers of Fox News are the worst informed people there are. Worse informed even than people who don't watch news at all. That's either the degree to which Fox News pundits are misleading people. Or simply a comment on how ignorant you have to be to watch them.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bus...
That's not a fix. Fox news pundits are on a whole other level from the other network news channels. A level that's reached by UKIP politicians. It's way more irrational than the average network news pundit.
I think the EU will have to show that either Micro USB can do everything that the Lightning connector can. Or they'd have to show that current phones can fit both a MicroUSB AND a Lightning connector. Or they'd have to allow an adapter between a MicroUSB charger and a lightning connector on a phone.
Otherwise, it'd be the EU regulating to reduce features on a popular device, without any safety rationale for doing so. I don't think that would wash.
Ignore that bit. It's the UK Independence Party (UKIP). They oppose all EU regulations on principle. The reasoning is irrelevant. They're about as rational as Fox News pundits.
Haha. You're funny. I have knowledge of it systems and protocols and what I believe to be a correct view of finances.
Again something thought by all those techies that lost money on .com stocks.
Look, obviously you believe you're better than that. I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Only time will do that.
More generally: It's best to give my Linux program a short acronym for a name rather than a name users will understand.
If I use "cunt", "fuck" and "shit" for variable names whilst I'm hacking something out, I'll be sure to come back later and give them proper names before I submit the code.
Absolutely. I have made the mistake of believing a library was at fault when it was my code on occasion. But not nearly as often as I've found a genuine bug in a library.
Why do you think that it is the rest of us don't bother to read the 'fing articles anymore.
Another lie: "We used to RTFAs".
An approach pioneered by the OOXML team at Microsoft.
The especially funny thing about Mt Gox is that if they had been a dollars-euros exchange and the same thing had happened (where they disappeared with a bunch of peoples' dollars and euros) I wonder which currency people would blame it on.
Were it a dollars-euros exchange, it would have been regulated.
I specifically spoke about intangible things, so the CD is irrelevant.
Both software and bitcoin are streams of bits. You are categorically stating that taking one is theft and the other isn't. Yet you provide no reasoning nor evidence for that.
Since the average person never or nearly never is able to use the chargeback mechanism on a CC and most who do are lying and claiming unauthorized use
Two claims that you have no evidence for.
since you do NOT qualify for a Chargeback if you are unhappy with a purchase
Well of course not. Chargebacks are intended for fraud, not fickleness.
The price of a traded intangible such as bitcoin only reflects supply and demand. You have no worthwhile domain knowledge about that until after it's happened. Nor do you have any knowledge of when Bitcoin organisations are going to fail or go rogue, nor what the market reaction will be.
It's certainly a gamble. That you think you can get ahead of the odds is a bad sign for you.
No. Bretton Woods finished with the Nixon Shock in 1971. The S&L crisis came after that.
Yes, I'm aware of that other gambler's fallacy to which you refer. It may well have prior call to the name "gambler's fallacy".
Nevertheless the one that I described, of gambler's being vocal when they win, and being silent or lying when they've lost is another one, thus giving the misleading idea that they are successful gamblers when they are not. That is also a gambler's fallacy. You can witness it at any racetrack or casino.
As for the second half of that - If BTC entirely collapsed tomorrow, I've already done better than break even on my original investment.
The point of my description of the gambler's fallacy is that you may well be ahead on this particular gamble (bitcoin) and you are being loud about it. But there will be other gambles in your life, perhaps tech-stocks for examples, that you will have or will lose on, and which you will keep quiet or lie about.
The big truth is that just because you won, doesn't mean it was a good gamble. It only means that on this occasion a random outcome happened to be in your favour. Another time it won't be.
What you seem to be describing is what we currently have with digital fiat.
What I'm saying is that bitcoin like technology could make the transfer of fiat currencies more secure. After all with international transfers, there's no ultimate authority, such as there is with domestic transactions.
I'm certainly not suggesting a government backed GOVcoin competitor to bitcoin. The point of bitcoin is to do an end run around government regulation, so a government backed one would be counterproductive.
If the law cannot keep up, what makes it possible for a statutory agency to do so?
Most obviously right now, the lack of a congress that's dedicated to stopping all executive sponsored legislation.
In general though technical details of technology and products as new ideas come along. And regulation needs to reflect that. Laws take a long time to get through, and on any one particular field, it's years between bills. It's pretty obvious regulators can be faster acting.
Ah yes, another person who is convinced that ALL laws and regulations are good
I've never said anything that could possibly be categorised as that. It's a deliberate mischaracterisation on your part.
if we live in a world where we can depend on government bureaucrats to ONLY implement good regulations, why do we need any regulations?
Which is both a non-sequiteur and makes no sense within itself.
but I do know that England had long ceased to be anything vaguely libertarian by the 1800s.
And there is the illustration of the point I made, that there aren't any examples of libertarian societies to draw such examples from.
Victorian England was certainly a situation where there was very little consumer protection regulation, and that's the reason products were commonly cut with dangerous additives. The same would be true in your imaginary libertarian world.
Can you give similar examples of food adulteration in the U.S.?
Doubtless, if I searched. I gave you England, because that's my country, so I know about it without having to search. You asked for examples I gave them. Now stop moving the goalposts.
Of course, all of your arguments are based on the assumption that I am a libertarian.
ROFL! Everyone here knows full well you're an extreme libertarian. Your posts over the years have been clear. Retreating now?
I said that I believe that if the government had not mandated safety standards for cars, they would be as safe, or safer and they would be less expensive. You use food safety in England as evidence that I am wrong.
Those two things are not directly related. Not even in the same post. My Victorian England examples were in answer to your question: "Can you give me an example of where an insufficiently regulated market resulted in less safety?"
It was most certainly an example of "an insufficiently regulated market that resulted in less safety". The fact that it doesn't reflect what you imagine would happen in an unregulated environment should give you cause to rethink your views. Instead it's causing you to start weaselling out of what you said.