Not that any group hell-bent on world domination through violent means is not dangerous, but the "islamists" are just not the only ones. There is plenty of pan-slavic sentiment that is encouraged in wink-wink-nodge-nodge style by the Russian government. I've seen a few Russian-language videos acting as plain terrorist-instruction manuals on YouTube. I am sorry, if someone thinks that it's "art" or some form of free expression, but when a video describes graphic details of how to create the most casualties in a crowded place and peppers the description with the enough "cool" factor, it makes a promotion of violence rather than just a description of violence. And helping out the people who promote senseless violence is just not the business that Google should be in.
It seems he was denied because he didn't want to pay the $1200 protection fee.
I don't know why it would seem that from the summary since the summary doesn't state that. In fact, the summary has some blabber about "selfishness of criminals" which clearly indicates that the DEA is trying to deflect attention from their lack of deference to actions unrelated to this story.
I've seen a lot of nut jobs who project their own fantasies on Ron Paul and claim that it is his opinion. Without a verifiable quote, I wouldn't believe any outrageous statement that is attributed to him. I know this sounds like I am willing to give him too much of a pass, but I've seen waaaaay too many nut jobs think that Ron Paul is on their side. So I am not being rosy-eyed here, just pragmatic.
Ron Paul also explicitly rejects the 14th amendment.
This REALLY needs a citation. It would preempt his entire position. Short of a direct verifiable quote, I'll assume you are pulling this out of your ass.
remove the ability of the supreme court to enforce the US constitution for state laws
Courts don't enforce any laws. They only issue opinions which interpret laws. Enforcements powers are with executive branches of every level of government. "Sanctity of Life Act" does not go as far as you claim. Personally, I think it's a piece of meat that he has to throw to his Texas constituency to stay elected despite the fact that he opposes all our wars and the Patriot Act.
No, did you even read the summary? He was denied the license. He didn't refuse to file for a license. He was denied. The gp's point is right on the money.
You got a quote for that? Because 14th amendment requires states to abide by the Bill Of Rights at state level. And Ron Paul would not violate any of the Constitutional amendments.
You might not be right about the present iteration. If they get sued, they have to disclose the suit in pre-IPO filing. This would, actually, put IPO on hold. So they might be screwing themselves.
"hostile work envrionment" is too wishy-wooshy. File 2 separate suites. One for bridge of employment agreement and one to stop the IPO (because the result of the 1st suit is material to the filing of the IPO). They'll settle to keep the IPO going.
because most people estimate that the cost of putting a software of even hardware-based keylogger is cheaper today than quantum computing will be even when matures. ie, the powers that be, that need to keep tabs on you, already can keep tabs on you.
Dice search for C++ yields 17k hits. Dice search for Java yields 18k hits. Dice search for hadoop yields ~600 hits. Of the "direct company" ads (266), 18 from amazon. That's about 7% of all hadoop direct-company hits. Not a single one of them mentions an investment bank. I smell self-promotion.
I'd characterize Buffets position in the market as a sort of specialized rent-seeking. He could only reach his privileged position through years of dealmaking, taking to businesses, working on financing, that kind of thing. It's not a position you or I could just have, but he's not privileged under law. The market in the wider sense (people who work in the investment industry, his reputation, etc...) makes his position special.
Well, if you had to pick between calling him an entrepreneur or a rent-seeker, he'd definitely be a rent-seeker. He just seeks his rent from corporations rather than from any retail market (housing, appliances, etc.). But he doesn't innovate. He doesn't bring new products to the market. He just buys cheap properties which generate cash flow.
That's not a financial incentive. I guess a rich guy can still be keen on building up his pyramid, but it ain't money driving it.
The more he can reduce the cost of his pyramids, the bigger he can make them. His financial incentives don't deal with feeding his family. But the grandeur of his endeavors is restricted by how many programmers and companies he can buy.
If you think taxes would be undodgeable, you are severely misinformed about what a financial transaction is. The only reason people trade stocks is because they are easier to trade. Bond market is 10 times the size of the equity market. And yet most people who manage their own money have never bought or sold a non-treasury bond. You can enumerate all financial transactions in existence. You can define financial transactions through a completely qualitative description and then those who need to raise money would simply go through a different structure. And the more you restrict free flow of capital, the more money Wall Street will make. They make their money on structuring deals. As soon as raising money requires more structured deals, they'll get into that business. The only people who'll be screwed will be the individuals who do what you want them to do -- hold stocks long term. Because anytime trading becomes more difficult, it simply reduces the amount of money in that particular market place.
I would however comment that both Warren and Bill are beyond the point where they're sensitive to financial incentives.
I think you underestimate them. At least, in the case of Bill Gates, he would still like to build more pyramids to himself. His pyramids happen to have actual social value, but he still builds them because he finds them "neat." And reducing economic opportunities for a lot of top-notch programmers is how he can build more pyramids (some of them will end up working for him).
On a separate note, Buffet is NOT an entrepreneur. He is a classic "rent seeker" (in your analogy). He is just a very successful one. His main strategy is to buy cheaply companies with high dividend and to use the cash flow to continue investing. If the last sentence said "houses" instead of "companies", calling Buffet a rent-seeker wouldn't even be an abstraction. He only invests when he finds a cheap company with good dividends while BRK is sitting on a lot of cash. In fact (and I am having trouble finding the quote right now), he once said that his own company does not pay dividend because each dollar of cash contributes more than one dollar to the stock price of BRK.
But, hey, at least a lot of highly skilled programmers will lose their jobs. I am sure Bill Gates is not doing this out of self-serving desire to reduce average programmer salary.
if he proposed exponential taxing scheme on intellectual property (you can extend your property rights indefinitely, each extension costs twice what the last one did). all these billionaires coming out and proposing that OTHER well-to-do people get taxed don't impress me very much. increasing the cost of IP would hit Gates' bottom line. wall street is just the boogie man of choice atm. before that it was oil companies. before that it was "big pharma". oh, and before that... it was MS. ever thought that the only reason Gates wants to tax HFT is that it employs a lot of programmers? This increases average market price of programmers. And that's Gates' bottom line. Do you really wanna shill for a market place where Bill Gates gets to reduce his costs by slashing average programmer's salary?
So simple logic is lost on you (because dismissing a source as non-authoritative is not an appeal to authority nor is it logically equivalent to it). I suppose that should underscore the rest of mad ranting. But you attempted to comment on a story which showed that "variable A increased in value" by attempting to bring in models which claimed that "value of variable A have significant impact on variable B when you run a simulation ignoring variables X,Y,Z,X1,Y1,..." This underscores something entirely different. You are not just an idiot. You may not even be an idiot. You are worse. You are a shill.
You are right. I should watch people pretend to have a scientific debate with arguments like "next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue" (as did the argument I was responding to) and pretend that they deserve some sort of deference. Unfortunately, I am just not that interested in humoring politicos pretending to be scientists in order to borrow the clout of trust that scientists have.
You can't possibly point to yellow press like guardian and call someone else ignorant, can you? Are you really that clueless? Or are you just posting from a padded room? Do you really think you are an adult? Read over your post to dissuade yourself of that notion.
None of what you said has anything to do with differential equations. Especially, the "facits of the model" bid. Oh, and, hypothesis is not only observations. It's also the assumptions about the data. So gp was right.
It's not? The chart says nothing about global warming itself. It only shows which countries release more CO2. China surpassed US both in absolute amount and in relative amount, by the way. US and the rest of the world has expanded their use proportionately. Chinese use has increased VERY rapidly. Just look at the chart. If you insist that the biggest "offender" has to cut the most, you'll have to try getting China to curtail their growth. Otherwise, you are just asking US to voluntarily increase prices on fossil fuels domestically so that China could use more of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that any group hell-bent on world domination through violent means is not dangerous, but the "islamists" are just not the only ones. There is plenty of pan-slavic sentiment that is encouraged in wink-wink-nodge-nodge style by the Russian government. I've seen a few Russian-language videos acting as plain terrorist-instruction manuals on YouTube. I am sorry, if someone thinks that it's "art" or some form of free expression, but when a video describes graphic details of how to create the most casualties in a crowded place and peppers the description with the enough "cool" factor, it makes a promotion of violence rather than just a description of violence. And helping out the people who promote senseless violence is just not the business that Google should be in.
It seems he was denied because he didn't want to pay the $1200 protection fee.
I don't know why it would seem that from the summary since the summary doesn't state that. In fact, the summary has some blabber about "selfishness of criminals" which clearly indicates that the DEA is trying to deflect attention from their lack of deference to actions unrelated to this story.
I've seen a lot of nut jobs who project their own fantasies on Ron Paul and claim that it is his opinion. Without a verifiable quote, I wouldn't believe any outrageous statement that is attributed to him. I know this sounds like I am willing to give him too much of a pass, but I've seen waaaaay too many nut jobs think that Ron Paul is on their side. So I am not being rosy-eyed here, just pragmatic.
Ron Paul also explicitly rejects the 14th amendment.
This REALLY needs a citation. It would preempt his entire position. Short of a direct verifiable quote, I'll assume you are pulling this out of your ass.
remove the ability of the supreme court to enforce the US constitution for state laws
Courts don't enforce any laws. They only issue opinions which interpret laws. Enforcements powers are with executive branches of every level of government. "Sanctity of Life Act" does not go as far as you claim. Personally, I think it's a piece of meat that he has to throw to his Texas constituency to stay elected despite the fact that he opposes all our wars and the Patriot Act.
Let's outlaw Sudafed next. Oh, and don't forget that cologne contains alcohol. Let's ban sale of cologne to minors. Land of the free... pfff
No, did you even read the summary? He was denied the license. He didn't refuse to file for a license. He was denied. The gp's point is right on the money.
You got a quote for that? Because 14th amendment requires states to abide by the Bill Of Rights at state level. And Ron Paul would not violate any of the Constitutional amendments.
You might not be right about the present iteration. If they get sued, they have to disclose the suit in pre-IPO filing. This would, actually, put IPO on hold. So they might be screwing themselves.
"hostile work envrionment" is too wishy-wooshy. File 2 separate suites. One for bridge of employment agreement and one to stop the IPO (because the result of the 1st suit is material to the filing of the IPO). They'll settle to keep the IPO going.
Sue and get a restraining order to put IPO on hold until the suit is resolved. They'll back off in under an hour.
because most people estimate that the cost of putting a software of even hardware-based keylogger is cheaper today than quantum computing will be even when matures. ie, the powers that be, that need to keep tabs on you, already can keep tabs on you.
Dice search for C++ yields 17k hits. Dice search for Java yields 18k hits. Dice search for hadoop yields ~600 hits. Of the "direct company" ads (266), 18 from amazon. That's about 7% of all hadoop direct-company hits. Not a single one of them mentions an investment bank. I smell self-promotion.
I'd characterize Buffets position in the market as a sort of specialized rent-seeking. He could only reach his privileged position through years of dealmaking, taking to businesses, working on financing, that kind of thing. It's not a position you or I could just have, but he's not privileged under law. The market in the wider sense (people who work in the investment industry, his reputation, etc...) makes his position special.
Well, if you had to pick between calling him an entrepreneur or a rent-seeker, he'd definitely be a rent-seeker. He just seeks his rent from corporations rather than from any retail market (housing, appliances, etc.). But he doesn't innovate. He doesn't bring new products to the market. He just buys cheap properties which generate cash flow.
That's not a financial incentive. I guess a rich guy can still be keen on building up his pyramid, but it ain't money driving it.
The more he can reduce the cost of his pyramids, the bigger he can make them. His financial incentives don't deal with feeding his family. But the grandeur of his endeavors is restricted by how many programmers and companies he can buy.
If you think taxes would be undodgeable, you are severely misinformed about what a financial transaction is. The only reason people trade stocks is because they are easier to trade. Bond market is 10 times the size of the equity market. And yet most people who manage their own money have never bought or sold a non-treasury bond. You can enumerate all financial transactions in existence. You can define financial transactions through a completely qualitative description and then those who need to raise money would simply go through a different structure. And the more you restrict free flow of capital, the more money Wall Street will make. They make their money on structuring deals. As soon as raising money requires more structured deals, they'll get into that business. The only people who'll be screwed will be the individuals who do what you want them to do -- hold stocks long term. Because anytime trading becomes more difficult, it simply reduces the amount of money in that particular market place.
I would however comment that both Warren and Bill are beyond the point where they're sensitive to financial incentives.
I think you underestimate them. At least, in the case of Bill Gates, he would still like to build more pyramids to himself. His pyramids happen to have actual social value, but he still builds them because he finds them "neat." And reducing economic opportunities for a lot of top-notch programmers is how he can build more pyramids (some of them will end up working for him).
On a separate note, Buffet is NOT an entrepreneur. He is a classic "rent seeker" (in your analogy). He is just a very successful one. His main strategy is to buy cheaply companies with high dividend and to use the cash flow to continue investing. If the last sentence said "houses" instead of "companies", calling Buffet a rent-seeker wouldn't even be an abstraction. He only invests when he finds a cheap company with good dividends while BRK is sitting on a lot of cash. In fact (and I am having trouble finding the quote right now), he once said that his own company does not pay dividend because each dollar of cash contributes more than one dollar to the stock price of BRK.
But, hey, at least a lot of highly skilled programmers will lose their jobs. I am sure Bill Gates is not doing this out of self-serving desire to reduce average programmer salary.
I'd would keep this going, but at this point you have just become your own parody. I'll let your statements stand on their own.
I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.
This is how you continue to ensure your irrelevance.
Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time?
There is no reason to consider sources which are not credible. Look to mirror for an example of a source which is not credible.
This:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is incorrect. a says p about S. Therefore, p is incorrect.
is NOT an appeal to authority. It's an inverse of an appeal to authority. Inverses are not logically equivalent. An appeal to authority would be this:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct. a says p about S. Therefore, p is correct.
Are we done with this, dimwit? Your arrogance does not match your wits. Learn to be humble. Or learn to cope with dismissal.
if he proposed exponential taxing scheme on intellectual property (you can extend your property rights indefinitely, each extension costs twice what the last one did). all these billionaires coming out and proposing that OTHER well-to-do people get taxed don't impress me very much. increasing the cost of IP would hit Gates' bottom line. wall street is just the boogie man of choice atm. before that it was oil companies. before that it was "big pharma". oh, and before that... it was MS. ever thought that the only reason Gates wants to tax HFT is that it employs a lot of programmers? This increases average market price of programmers. And that's Gates' bottom line. Do you really wanna shill for a market place where Bill Gates gets to reduce his costs by slashing average programmer's salary?
Appeal to authority
So simple logic is lost on you (because dismissing a source as non-authoritative is not an appeal to authority nor is it logically equivalent to it). I suppose that should underscore the rest of mad ranting. But you attempted to comment on a story which showed that "variable A increased in value" by attempting to bring in models which claimed that "value of variable A have significant impact on variable B when you run a simulation ignoring variables X,Y,Z,X1,Y1,..." This underscores something entirely different. You are not just an idiot. You may not even be an idiot. You are worse. You are a shill.
You are right. I should watch people pretend to have a scientific debate with arguments like "next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue" (as did the argument I was responding to) and pretend that they deserve some sort of deference. Unfortunately, I am just not that interested in humoring politicos pretending to be scientists in order to borrow the clout of trust that scientists have.
You can't possibly point to yellow press like guardian and call someone else ignorant, can you? Are you really that clueless? Or are you just posting from a padded room? Do you really think you are an adult? Read over your post to dissuade yourself of that notion.
None of what you said has anything to do with differential equations. Especially, the "facits of the model" bid. Oh, and, hypothesis is not only observations. It's also the assumptions about the data. So gp was right.
It's not? The chart says nothing about global warming itself. It only shows which countries release more CO2. China surpassed US both in absolute amount and in relative amount, by the way. US and the rest of the world has expanded their use proportionately. Chinese use has increased VERY rapidly. Just look at the chart. If you insist that the biggest "offender" has to cut the most, you'll have to try getting China to curtail their growth. Otherwise, you are just asking US to voluntarily increase prices on fossil fuels domestically so that China could use more of them.