Taking a 600k loan making 40k with a family of for is unconscionable. Offering such is anything but (besides maybe poor business sense). The only person to blame is the person signing for the loan. No one else. When did it become okay to give up personal responsibility?
He declared that all not of Islam were his enemies and that USA was evil and that he wished to strike it's head and heart. He invented and discussed a plan to blow up the damned Pentagon and assault it with ground troops, and then procured the materials required to do so. He was in no way an innocent man.
Or, let me put it another way. What is "attempted murder"?
Hi! I share a habitat and a life with a PhD-seeking Economist who claims exactly that, because it's simple math.
Here, look at it like this. At a tax rate of 0%, the government makes no money. Obvious, right? As you increase taxes, the government makes more money. Also obvious. Here's the part that requires thought: at a 100% tax rate, the government makes no money because no one has any incentive to work. Seriously -- are you going to do your job for free, while all the money goes to the government? Of course not.
So, since we know it starts at zero, rises from there, and eventually ends at zero, that means that there is absolutely a point at which it turns downward. QED, etc.
Are you seriously suggesting forcing developers to develop for multiple, independent platforms? You'd kill all but the largest studios, since a guy eating ramen isn't going to live long enough to get his game done for PS3 and XBox360 and Wii.
For that matter, if you're going to legally force people to not just make one version of a game, how do you decide what counts as a platform, and how many they must develop for? If I make a PS3 game, can I port it to a different model of PS3? Do I have to make a 3DS version?
It's nonsense. Regulation is always inefficiency, and only necessary when pre-awareness threats to health are concerned. All your idea would do is kill every independent developer and triple the price of games -- and completely homogenize hardware, killing innovation. No thanks.
I've yet to see your proof that exabiological studies cannot benefit human health and lifespans. Indeed, to this point you've been rather mute on the point of what you're advocating increasing spending on. What problem do you posit throwing more money at, as opposed to the search for knowledge?
They are not changing your ability to 'access' anything. Nowhere in that thing you quipped did it say "unlimited obligation on the part of AT&T to deliver the technically fastest possible throughput to your particular device". You still have unlimited access, i.e. at any time you can access the web.
Yeah, I mean, search is a trivial problem, with no room for innovation or research, so the only way to compete is to be the largest player. That makes sense, since there was never a search before Google; they clearly strong-armed all the potential competitors out of the way before they could develop.
Or maybe you're just blowing smoke and bending over for Microsoft, and there have been plenty of competitors in the search market, including the market as a whole before Google rose to a leadership position through a superior product.
I've had a Galaxy S for several months. I've never had any trouble "connecting the phone as a mass storage device" -- you hit one button and it's done. If Windows screws it up I can only advise using a more stable operating system.
Haven't used Skype on Android but since you invented fake mass storage problems I imagine your concerns with that are fake as well. It's popular to complain about Android stability, but anyone who knows what they are doing and doesn't install random shady-looking garbage never has any trouble.
The damned Linux kernel is written in C. Is that low level enough for you?
C is absolutely a low level language. There are lower level languages, sure (assmebly, and, uh, hmm... assembly?) but C allows you direct unmanaged memory access and pointer manipulation. Moreover, there are constraints on the complexity of code that C can generate without telling you. This is not true of the languages you are trotting out.
I'm sure this is somehow some "Java is the best systems language" bullshit that you're leading up to trying to trot out, but C is and always has been a very-nearly-ideal systems programming language, as in it's what sits between you and the hardware. If that's not low-level then what, pray tell, is?
Or, alternatively, "Yeah, Plain Text is really proprietary, impossible to decipher without reverse engineering; the worst format for interoperability."
We're talking about theoretical improvements of PowerShell, and this whole thread was about.NET bits autoparsing XML. Once you move away from.NET you're exactly piping plaintext (like *nix) except you have to parse a whole XML tree to get it.
Yeah, that's great as long as you and everyone who ever uses your output forever uses.NET, eh? Locking into a single product from a single vendor couldn't possibly create problems. Although really I guess you're locked in to running on a single platform using a single utility from a single vendor -- the SAME vendor, haha -- so it's not too much of a jump.
You've got it backwards. You picked it up and gave it to her because it has helped survival in the past. The behavior has evolved already. There are instances where it does not benefit the group, sure -- but even in your case, it benefitted you by not making you a rebellious member of the group. If people saw you steal that woman's money, how likely do you think they would be to invite you into their social units?
Yeah, because Symbian was what you were complaining about in your origina-- oh, that's right, you were talking about Android, which is also 1000x better than "it was."
By the by, lying by omission is still lying, and pretending innocence is morally corrupt. What does that say about the company that employs you to write this stuff?
There's no patriotism to it -- it's simple fact. You're welcome to posit otherwise. Are you claiming that the US is neither of those?
And no one was talking about "control over production and society through accumulation of capital." That is, indeed, specific to capitalism, but has nothing to do with what you first were talking about, and which I replied to -- the supposed 'obfuscation' of the financial sector. A financial sector which I am attempting to communicate exists in any large economy.
Yes, the most technologically and economically successful nation in the modern world can't get out of denial; they're clearly doing something wrong. We may speculate on the future, but the past is set in stone.
And we weren't talking about capitalism, son. We were talking about Economics, which applies to any market, free or not. Thinking you can't sell derivatives in a socialist structure is called "missing the point."
WTF are you talking about? Everything you have mentioned is well within abilities of a trained accountant, statistician and a programmer -- three guys employed by some company that pays them salaries. Most of complexity in what banks do comes not from performing banks' functions but from intentional obfuscation (ex: mortgage based securities crap) performed in hope of outsmarting someone else.
Yeah, everything I have mentioned that I also posited as part of the very beginnings of the most basic cursory education in Economics.
It only seems like obfuscation because you don't understand it. Most people find programming languages to be full of arbitrary obfuscation, because they don't understand syntax and parse trees and whatnot. Does that mean natural languages are better for writing code? Think about that.
You are one of these people who believe that someone is getting screwed when money is made. Let's look at it like this. If I see a sale, good for ten minutes, on $5 loaves of bread, and I buy one for $1 even though I don't need one, and later on sell it to you for $3, I've made two bucks, and you've saved two bucks. Do you see what happened there? I assumed the risk of selling the bread, and profited from it. That's your 'obfuscation'. Anticipating your objection -- what if I just bought a coupon for a $1 loaf of bread, paying $1 and selling it to you for $2? That's derivatives, and there's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, it increases the stability of the market -- which, if you will reflect upon, of course comes at the detriment to the extreme low and extreme high end.
The things that banks do -- the ways that money moves around the economy, even the oft-lamented (even by myself) speculation, are the things that allow a market to exist in the first place. There's no "outsmarting" anyone going on. Merely people assuming responsibilities for varying degrees of financial risk, and profiting (and not profiting) thereby.
What's your utopia market with no complexity? Do you even understand the "complexity" you're talking about?
Let's put it like this. What happens when you deposit money in a savings account in a bank? Why do they spend money keeping your money safe? Where does your interest come from? What happens to the money they lend out? What happens to the money after that? That's Econ 101, pal, and we're not even getting into the real stuff yet.
Finances are complex because they're, by definition, the highest-utility good (i.e. everyone wants it) and there are some millions of people trying everything they can to achieve it. Which they have every right to do -- there is nothing noble about refusing to prosper.
It will never be 'simple.' The financial sector is the fundament of a stable economy, which is a fundament of a stable country. And I say that as a Comp Sci PhD candidate.
I'm seeing this attitude everywhere, and it's baffling, because the most trivial analysis tears it apart.
Your obvious lack of knowledge concerning the financial sector aside, how do you propose to keep people from trading in derivatives in a "real free market economy"? There will -always- be value in the transfer and management of risk. You cannot construct a working, competitive market without there being money to be made strictly from studying where the money comes from and where it goes.
The icon is not at all exactly the same. The similarity ends at the fact that it's a tilted white phone pictogram on a green background. I'd submit that's fairly obvious, but whatever.
It's actually nothing like the Office icons, which are distinctive, and carry the logos for their respective products. The button you're complaining about is, literally, the shape of a phone, and nothing more. This situation is a lot more like someone using an icon that looks like a notepad, and trying to say that Windows has grounds to sue. Or, in short, it's completely wrong.
Yeah, the money Apple invested probably wasn't worth the money earned. Hang on, let me run your sentence by you again:
If they think that the money invested won't be worth the money earned, then they are making the right call.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If they think the money invested won't be worth the money earned and they are proven correct then they have made the right call. It's clear they don't think that investing the money will yield returns. So far, the market is rubbing their face in it.
I've been hearing this a lot; I think it's rose-colored glasses. MSN was never a strong contender. The writing was on the wall for the 'private' networks as soon as public routing started happening.
MSN wasn't the "path history ended up taking" because it was a bad idea -- not the only one of its kind, but one executed way after everyone else had figured it out.
It's hugely relevant; MS has a looooong history of waiting far too long to muscle in on markets, and as a result having to spend truckloads of cash to carve out a segment for themselves.
Yeah, about 99% of the tablet market is pure iPad -- an Apple device most commonly found in Apple stores. Elsewhere? Sure, but it's a bit disingenuous to think they aren't moving just because they aren't out next to netbooks in "virtually every computer-related store."
Slashdot Mirror
Taking a 600k loan making 40k with a family of for is unconscionable. Offering such is anything but (besides maybe poor business sense). The only person to blame is the person signing for the loan. No one else. When did it become okay to give up personal responsibility?
Ah, yes, clearly inaccurate and inefficient enforcement is more fair.
Seriously, this is the worst argument ever.
He declared that all not of Islam were his enemies and that USA was evil and that he wished to strike it's head and heart. He invented and discussed a plan to blow up the damned Pentagon and assault it with ground troops, and then procured the materials required to do so. He was in no way an innocent man.
Or, let me put it another way. What is "attempted murder"?
Hi! I share a habitat and a life with a PhD-seeking Economist who claims exactly that, because it's simple math.
Here, look at it like this. At a tax rate of 0%, the government makes no money. Obvious, right? As you increase taxes, the government makes more money. Also obvious. Here's the part that requires thought: at a 100% tax rate, the government makes no money because no one has any incentive to work. Seriously -- are you going to do your job for free, while all the money goes to the government? Of course not.
So, since we know it starts at zero, rises from there, and eventually ends at zero, that means that there is absolutely a point at which it turns downward. QED, etc.
Are you seriously suggesting forcing developers to develop for multiple, independent platforms? You'd kill all but the largest studios, since a guy eating ramen isn't going to live long enough to get his game done for PS3 and XBox360 and Wii.
For that matter, if you're going to legally force people to not just make one version of a game, how do you decide what counts as a platform, and how many they must develop for? If I make a PS3 game, can I port it to a different model of PS3? Do I have to make a 3DS version?
It's nonsense. Regulation is always inefficiency, and only necessary when pre-awareness threats to health are concerned. All your idea would do is kill every independent developer and triple the price of games -- and completely homogenize hardware, killing innovation. No thanks.
I've yet to see your proof that exabiological studies cannot benefit human health and lifespans. Indeed, to this point you've been rather mute on the point of what you're advocating increasing spending on. What problem do you posit throwing more money at, as opposed to the search for knowledge?
They are not changing your ability to 'access' anything. Nowhere in that thing you quipped did it say "unlimited obligation on the part of AT&T to deliver the technically fastest possible throughput to your particular device". You still have unlimited access, i.e. at any time you can access the web.
Yeah, I mean, search is a trivial problem, with no room for innovation or research, so the only way to compete is to be the largest player. That makes sense, since there was never a search before Google; they clearly strong-armed all the potential competitors out of the way before they could develop.
Or maybe you're just blowing smoke and bending over for Microsoft, and there have been plenty of competitors in the search market, including the market as a whole before Google rose to a leadership position through a superior product.
I've had a Galaxy S for several months. I've never had any trouble "connecting the phone as a mass storage device" -- you hit one button and it's done. If Windows screws it up I can only advise using a more stable operating system.
Haven't used Skype on Android but since you invented fake mass storage problems I imagine your concerns with that are fake as well. It's popular to complain about Android stability, but anyone who knows what they are doing and doesn't install random shady-looking garbage never has any trouble.
The damned Linux kernel is written in C. Is that low level enough for you?
C is absolutely a low level language. There are lower level languages, sure (assmebly, and, uh, hmm... assembly?) but C allows you direct unmanaged memory access and pointer manipulation. Moreover, there are constraints on the complexity of code that C can generate without telling you. This is not true of the languages you are trotting out.
I'm sure this is somehow some "Java is the best systems language" bullshit that you're leading up to trying to trot out, but C is and always has been a very-nearly-ideal systems programming language, as in it's what sits between you and the hardware. If that's not low-level then what, pray tell, is?
Are you trying to be dense? What's in the XML?
Or, alternatively, "Yeah, Plain Text is really proprietary, impossible to decipher without reverse engineering; the worst format for interoperability."
We're talking about theoretical improvements of PowerShell, and this whole thread was about .NET bits autoparsing XML. Once you move away from .NET you're exactly piping plaintext (like *nix) except you have to parse a whole XML tree to get it.
Yeah, that's great as long as you and everyone who ever uses your output forever uses .NET, eh? Locking into a single product from a single vendor couldn't possibly create problems. Although really I guess you're locked in to running on a single platform using a single utility from a single vendor -- the SAME vendor, haha -- so it's not too much of a jump.
I'm sorry. I'm really not trying to be obtuse; this is a serious question.
How is any of that different from shell scripts?
You've got it backwards. You picked it up and gave it to her because it has helped survival in the past. The behavior has evolved already. There are instances where it does not benefit the group, sure -- but even in your case, it benefitted you by not making you a rebellious member of the group. If people saw you steal that woman's money, how likely do you think they would be to invite you into their social units?
Yeah, because Symbian was what you were complaining about in your origina-- oh, that's right, you were talking about Android, which is also 1000x better than "it was."
By the by, lying by omission is still lying, and pretending innocence is morally corrupt. What does that say about the company that employs you to write this stuff?
There's no patriotism to it -- it's simple fact. You're welcome to posit otherwise. Are you claiming that the US is neither of those?
And no one was talking about "control over production and society through accumulation of capital." That is, indeed, specific to capitalism, but has nothing to do with what you first were talking about, and which I replied to -- the supposed 'obfuscation' of the financial sector. A financial sector which I am attempting to communicate exists in any large economy.
Yes, the most technologically and economically successful nation in the modern world can't get out of denial; they're clearly doing something wrong. We may speculate on the future, but the past is set in stone.
And we weren't talking about capitalism, son. We were talking about Economics, which applies to any market, free or not. Thinking you can't sell derivatives in a socialist structure is called "missing the point."
WTF are you talking about? Everything you have mentioned is well within abilities of a trained accountant, statistician and a programmer -- three guys employed by some company that pays them salaries. Most of complexity in what banks do comes not from performing banks' functions but from intentional obfuscation (ex: mortgage based securities crap) performed in hope of outsmarting someone else.
Yeah, everything I have mentioned that I also posited as part of the very beginnings of the most basic cursory education in Economics.
It only seems like obfuscation because you don't understand it. Most people find programming languages to be full of arbitrary obfuscation, because they don't understand syntax and parse trees and whatnot. Does that mean natural languages are better for writing code? Think about that.
You are one of these people who believe that someone is getting screwed when money is made. Let's look at it like this. If I see a sale, good for ten minutes, on $5 loaves of bread, and I buy one for $1 even though I don't need one, and later on sell it to you for $3, I've made two bucks, and you've saved two bucks. Do you see what happened there? I assumed the risk of selling the bread, and profited from it. That's your 'obfuscation'. Anticipating your objection -- what if I just bought a coupon for a $1 loaf of bread, paying $1 and selling it to you for $2? That's derivatives, and there's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, it increases the stability of the market -- which, if you will reflect upon, of course comes at the detriment to the extreme low and extreme high end.
The things that banks do -- the ways that money moves around the economy, even the oft-lamented (even by myself) speculation, are the things that allow a market to exist in the first place. There's no "outsmarting" anyone going on. Merely people assuming responsibilities for varying degrees of financial risk, and profiting (and not profiting) thereby.
What's your utopia market with no complexity? Do you even understand the "complexity" you're talking about?
Let's put it like this. What happens when you deposit money in a savings account in a bank? Why do they spend money keeping your money safe? Where does your interest come from? What happens to the money they lend out? What happens to the money after that? That's Econ 101, pal, and we're not even getting into the real stuff yet.
Finances are complex because they're, by definition, the highest-utility good (i.e. everyone wants it) and there are some millions of people trying everything they can to achieve it. Which they have every right to do -- there is nothing noble about refusing to prosper.
It will never be 'simple.' The financial sector is the fundament of a stable economy, which is a fundament of a stable country. And I say that as a Comp Sci PhD candidate.
I'm seeing this attitude everywhere, and it's baffling, because the most trivial analysis tears it apart.
Your obvious lack of knowledge concerning the financial sector aside, how do you propose to keep people from trading in derivatives in a "real free market economy"? There will -always- be value in the transfer and management of risk. You cannot construct a working, competitive market without there being money to be made strictly from studying where the money comes from and where it goes.
The icon is not at all exactly the same. The similarity ends at the fact that it's a tilted white phone pictogram on a green background. I'd submit that's fairly obvious, but whatever.
It's actually nothing like the Office icons, which are distinctive, and carry the logos for their respective products. The button you're complaining about is, literally, the shape of a phone, and nothing more. This situation is a lot more like someone using an icon that looks like a notepad, and trying to say that Windows has grounds to sue. Or, in short, it's completely wrong.
Yeah, the money Apple invested probably wasn't worth the money earned. Hang on, let me run your sentence by you again:
If they think that the money invested won't be worth the money earned, then they are making the right call.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If they think the money invested won't be worth the money earned and they are proven correct then they have made the right call. It's clear they don't think that investing the money will yield returns. So far, the market is rubbing their face in it.
I've been hearing this a lot; I think it's rose-colored glasses. MSN was never a strong contender. The writing was on the wall for the 'private' networks as soon as public routing started happening.
MSN wasn't the "path history ended up taking" because it was a bad idea -- not the only one of its kind, but one executed way after everyone else had figured it out.
It's hugely relevant; MS has a looooong history of waiting far too long to muscle in on markets, and as a result having to spend truckloads of cash to carve out a segment for themselves.
Yeah, about 99% of the tablet market is pure iPad -- an Apple device most commonly found in Apple stores. Elsewhere? Sure, but it's a bit disingenuous to think they aren't moving just because they aren't out next to netbooks in "virtually every computer-related store."
Or, you know, people could keep their tablets indoors.