Which runs contrary to the idea that capitalism works by people accumulating capital (their incentive is a decent interest rate) which is then available for investment in the broader economy either through direct investment or pooled investment (e.g. banks making loans from their reserves).
I think you're mistaking interest rates with ROI (Return on Investment). If interest is your ONLY return, then they're equal, but then you don't need a company, you just need an investment tool. Allowing companies to borrow cheap money creates an incentive for them to borrow if they can use that capital to make a better ROI. That helps stimulate hiring, and growth. Sorry if that's all obvious to you, but it appeared from your writing that it wasn't.
It puts me in the camp of those have personal responsibility and at odds with crooks. I am often at odds with crooks and cheats.
Ah, so now people who take legal deductions are crooks and cheats. Let's just be clear, because you don't like it, you've resorted to name calling instead of taking some real responsibility, and trying to get the rules changed legitimately. So, keep on smiling. I'll keep on taking my mortgage deduction, thanks.
Seems to? Based on what? Nobody is pointing a gun at anyone in the EU. Hell, half of America romanticizes about everything European. But let's be honest. European countries have done plenty of the crap that you're accusing the US of doing right now. The term gunboat diplomacy originated with European powers. While America has been in plenty of controversial conflicts, none in recent memory were due to trade. Your example of Cuba isn't related to this discussion, but there are plenty (I'd say the vast majority) of Americans who wish to put an end to that. As for the "swat team" arrests, what are you talking about?...MPAA/RIAA?
Yeah, we know the EU would never lobby in the US. Seriously, get a clue. You don't want our lobbyists, we don't want yours, hell, we don't want ours either. But, is the playing field really tilted? And, don't give me the crap about the Lockheed bribery scandals...there's plenty of bribery on both sides of the pond.
Yea, reciprocal. An 800 lb gorilla US over a 50 lb country or a 50 lb country over an 800 lb gorilla US.
Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen, and as with most of us, despise lobbyists. Our legal system has made it a feeding frenzy, and next to impossible for anyone to put a stop to.
Your assertion that "Americans seem to feel it is their god-given right to tell others how to run their business", is played both ways. There are plenty of foreign lobbys putting pressure on the US (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Foreign_lobbying). I'm not a fan of lobbyists, but isn't this really the pot calling the kettle black?
FWIW, I do wish we had some of your privacy laws here. Our severe lack of them is clearly broken.
Advances in technology do not equate to advances in human nature. It is human nature to have disagreements, fights, wars, etc. When you figure out a way to eliminate poverty, greed, aggression, and a few other issues, then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible. Yes, you didn't say that it's possible in our lifetime. I would have given you a pass if it was even conceivable in a few generations, but you've stretched beyond the bounds of current reality, or even what's on any kind of futuristic drawing boards. So, again, for all practical purposes, it's still impossible. You can't call BS on something that you can't currently change.
I agree with your points. However, if the point about publishing information is correct, I'm sure that will fail in court when it comes to going against freedom of the press. Maybe a private citizen couldn't do it, but the press won't be contained by that kind of law.
I also played (back in the 80s...never got beyond a 1500 rating myself). Your comment that most openings didn't go beyond 7 or so moves is incorrect. Look up "The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings", and you'll see what I mean. It was a five volume set of books back in my time. As you pointed out, you had to learn to play a whole set of openings. As black, learning the Pirc (e4 opening), Grunfield (d4 opening), and English (c4 opening) covered 99% of all the games I ever played. Beyond that, learning strategic positioning, and basic endgames will allow you to win against nearly anyone who doesn't play regularly. There's a lot of pattern recognition necessary to play well, which requires a lot of practice. Also, learning to pick out "candidate moves" (see "Think Like a Grandmaster" by Sammy Reshevsky), and how to analyze them helped me a lot.
I thought it was more if you win playing the same moves that a computer would make you are cheating.
In the old days, beyond student level, you had to play against tough human opponents to grind out experience, slowly learn to play like your human opponents, and with any luck you'd advance beyond your human trainers.
In the new day, because the computers are the strongest players and always available etc, you'll grind your experience out against a computer, slowly learn to play like your computer opponents, and with any luck you'll advance beyond the programmers of your computer trainers.
It seems inevitable that in a couple generations human chess will look "computer" to a current player.
In the "old days", when I used to play in USCF tournaments (1980s), most all programs played from an opening book, and once taken out of the book moves, utilized a brute force tree search, rating each position with a score as it went. down the tree. The longer they were given to "think", the more moves they could "look ahead". This caused programs to be very good at tactical play, as they wouldn't miss any obvious errors that were within the next few moves. It did leave them susceptible to being overpowered strategically. Learning to post your pieces in good strategic locations is something that isn't a simple heuristic to program. A great book on how grandmasters see things was written by Sammy Reshevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Reshevsky), and titled "Think Like a Grandmaster".
There is no reason for the algorithm to do as you indicate. Computer chess programs have for years (even back in the 70s) checked for and claimed drawn positions.
This is a typical HR/Legal position to cover their butts. We're required to interview three people, even if we have a perfect candidate that we want to hire.
If I appeared to put words in your mouth, I apologize. That was not my intention, only to continue with your discussion of "who decides what is "fair"", and the ownership of resources. I honestly don't know the details in Venezuela, but I doubt highly that Mr. Chavez' actions were for the public good...I plan to do a bit of reading on that.
Let's be certain we're comparing apples to apples. What are the tax differences? Take those out of the equation before the comparison. Also, are you comparing U.S. gallons to Imperial?
Exxon was doing what the Venezuelans were incapable of doing for themselves. Their market capitalization and GDP have nothing to do with this conversation. Both Exxon and the Venezuelan people should have benefited from that development, but no company is going to come in and do it for free. Was Exxon overcompensated for it's work? Were they exploiting the privilege of extracting resources more than at comparable locations around the world, or in comparison to other companies? Those are the fairness questions that should be answered.
Who decides what is fair shouldn't be a popularity contest. You either own it or you don't, and taking it for the public good should be an absolute necessity, not a political whim, as was the case below. SCOTUS screwed the pooch on this ruling...
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004)), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney (2006)), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.
The MFR simply makes the product. The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse. Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
With respect to guns, the proper, intended use of the product is to put holes into people.
Why should they be shielded from liability any more than tobacco companies?
You're right, they should be the same. Neither should have been liable. Okay, I'll cave on the idea that people who smoked before it was known to be a danger should have the right to sue. But, if you knew it was dangerous, then you just Darwin'ed yourself, and your heirs don't deserve to collect from anyone for your idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
Which runs contrary to the idea that capitalism works by people accumulating capital (their incentive is a decent interest rate) which is then available for investment in the broader economy either through direct investment or pooled investment (e.g. banks making loans from their reserves).
I think you're mistaking interest rates with ROI (Return on Investment). If interest is your ONLY return, then they're equal, but then you don't need a company, you just need an investment tool. Allowing companies to borrow cheap money creates an incentive for them to borrow if they can use that capital to make a better ROI. That helps stimulate hiring, and growth. Sorry if that's all obvious to you, but it appeared from your writing that it wasn't.
How cute.
It puts me in the camp of those have personal responsibility and at odds with crooks. I am often at odds with crooks and cheats.
Ah, so now people who take legal deductions are crooks and cheats. Let's just be clear, because you don't like it, you've resorted to name calling instead of taking some real responsibility, and trying to get the rules changed legitimately. So, keep on smiling. I'll keep on taking my mortgage deduction, thanks.
Seems to? Based on what? Nobody is pointing a gun at anyone in the EU. Hell, half of America romanticizes about everything European. But let's be honest. European countries have done plenty of the crap that you're accusing the US of doing right now. The term gunboat diplomacy originated with European powers. While America has been in plenty of controversial conflicts, none in recent memory were due to trade. Your example of Cuba isn't related to this discussion, but there are plenty (I'd say the vast majority) of Americans who wish to put an end to that. As for the "swat team" arrests, what are you talking about?...MPAA/RIAA?
You're either delusional, a troll, or didn't read what I wrote. That said, I won't be responding further to your idiocy.
Yeah, we know the EU would never lobby in the US. Seriously, get a clue. You don't want our lobbyists, we don't want yours, hell, we don't want ours either. But, is the playing field really tilted? And, don't give me the crap about the Lockheed bribery scandals...there's plenty of bribery on both sides of the pond.
Yea, reciprocal. An 800 lb gorilla US over a 50 lb country or a 50 lb country over an 800 lb gorilla US.
Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen, and as with most of us, despise lobbyists. Our legal system has made it a feeding frenzy, and next to impossible for anyone to put a stop to.
What evidence do you have that the US is doing any more lobbying than the EU is doing in the US? None of us here are in love with lobbyists, but there is certainly plenty of foreign lobbying here, ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Foreign_lobbying
Your assertion that "Americans seem to feel it is their god-given right to tell others how to run their business", is played both ways. There are plenty of foreign lobbys putting pressure on the US (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Foreign_lobbying). I'm not a fan of lobbyists, but isn't this really the pot calling the kettle black?
FWIW, I do wish we had some of your privacy laws here. Our severe lack of them is clearly broken.
Signed,
A Sympathetic Barbarian
Advances in technology do not equate to advances in human nature. It is human nature to have disagreements, fights, wars, etc. When you figure out a way to eliminate poverty, greed, aggression, and a few other issues, then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible. Yes, you didn't say that it's possible in our lifetime. I would have given you a pass if it was even conceivable in a few generations, but you've stretched beyond the bounds of current reality, or even what's on any kind of futuristic drawing boards. So, again, for all practical purposes, it's still impossible. You can't call BS on something that you can't currently change.
42nd trimester?!? Wow, she must have been HUGE!
I agree with your points. However, if the point about publishing information is correct, I'm sure that will fail in court when it comes to going against freedom of the press. Maybe a private citizen couldn't do it, but the press won't be contained by that kind of law.
This is because your peace is imposing on that of other people.
That civilization needs war is BS. The other ways are harder, but not impossible.
Only in your Utopia. In the real world, they are impossible.
So money is the only thing that motivates you to work?
Of course it is....? Are you kidding?
That's just sad. While money is certainly one motivator, there are plenty of others, and what motivates you the most depends upon your current life situation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Possible side benefit: they need to research communications systems reliable enough to command the deep sea capsules when needed.
The navy has had this ability for quite some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency
I also played (back in the 80s...never got beyond a 1500 rating myself). Your comment that most openings didn't go beyond 7 or so moves is incorrect. Look up "The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings", and you'll see what I mean. It was a five volume set of books back in my time. As you pointed out, you had to learn to play a whole set of openings. As black, learning the Pirc (e4 opening), Grunfield (d4 opening), and English (c4 opening) covered 99% of all the games I ever played. Beyond that, learning strategic positioning, and basic endgames will allow you to win against nearly anyone who doesn't play regularly. There's a lot of pattern recognition necessary to play well, which requires a lot of practice. Also, learning to pick out "candidate moves" (see "Think Like a Grandmaster" by Sammy Reshevsky), and how to analyze them helped me a lot.
I thought it was more if you win playing the same moves that a computer would make you are cheating.
In the old days, beyond student level, you had to play against tough human opponents to grind out experience, slowly learn to play like your human opponents, and with any luck you'd advance beyond your human trainers.
In the new day, because the computers are the strongest players and always available etc, you'll grind your experience out against a computer, slowly learn to play like your computer opponents, and with any luck you'll advance beyond the programmers of your computer trainers.
It seems inevitable that in a couple generations human chess will look "computer" to a current player.
In the "old days", when I used to play in USCF tournaments (1980s), most all programs played from an opening book, and once taken out of the book moves, utilized a brute force tree search, rating each position with a score as it went. down the tree. The longer they were given to "think", the more moves they could "look ahead". This caused programs to be very good at tactical play, as they wouldn't miss any obvious errors that were within the next few moves. It did leave them susceptible to being overpowered strategically. Learning to post your pieces in good strategic locations is something that isn't a simple heuristic to program. A great book on how grandmasters see things was written by Sammy Reshevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Reshevsky), and titled "Think Like a Grandmaster".
There is no reason for the algorithm to do as you indicate. Computer chess programs have for years (even back in the 70s) checked for and claimed drawn positions.
I could have said the same to your post.
This is a typical HR/Legal position to cover their butts. We're required to interview three people, even if we have a perfect candidate that we want to hire.
Carry a cell phone? You can be tracked already.
If I appeared to put words in your mouth, I apologize. That was not my intention, only to continue with your discussion of "who decides what is "fair"", and the ownership of resources. I honestly don't know the details in Venezuela, but I doubt highly that Mr. Chavez' actions were for the public good...I plan to do a bit of reading on that.
Let's be certain we're comparing apples to apples. What are the tax differences? Take those out of the equation before the comparison. Also, are you comparing U.S. gallons to Imperial?
Exxon was doing what the Venezuelans were incapable of doing for themselves. Their market capitalization and GDP have nothing to do with this conversation. Both Exxon and the Venezuelan people should have benefited from that development, but no company is going to come in and do it for free. Was Exxon overcompensated for it's work? Were they exploiting the privilege of extracting resources more than at comparable locations around the world, or in comparison to other companies? Those are the fairness questions that should be answered.
Who decides what is fair shouldn't be a popularity contest. You either own it or you don't, and taking it for the public good should be an absolute necessity, not a political whim, as was the case below. SCOTUS screwed the pooch on this ruling...
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004)), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney (2006)), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.
'Several researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to raise Facebook's wallowing stock price'
There, fixed that for them.
The MFR simply makes the product.
The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse.
Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
With respect to guns, the proper, intended use of the product is to put holes into people.
Why should they be shielded from liability any more than tobacco companies?
You're right, they should be the same. Neither should have been liable. Okay, I'll cave on the idea that people who smoked before it was known to be a danger should have the right to sue. But, if you knew it was dangerous, then you just Darwin'ed yourself, and your heirs don't deserve to collect from anyone for your idiocy.