It is selectively illegal. Games of chance are only illegal for those not associated with the government (in most areas). Investment/insurance gambling is legal but regulated enough that you need to be rich to be the "house" (on the good end).
Amazingly, casino games give house odds of 0.1%-20% per roll/hand. But PowerBall games give more than 50% house odds. Make the better ones illegal or limited in availability. And when they are there, tax the crap out of them and make them advertise gambling addiction prevention stuff.
You could think of it in reverse. They could be excavating a historic site and built a electrical substation and other buildings to assist in the operation.
boolean[100] notPrime = new boolean[100]; markNonPrime(notPrime, 2); for (int n = 3; n 100; n+=2)
markNonPrime(notPrime, n); for (int n = 2; n 100; n++)
if (!notPrime[n])
println(n);
function markNonPrime(boolean[] notPrime, int p) {
for (int n = p; n 100; p+=n)
notPrime[n] = true; }
You are all making assumptions of my life. I guarantee none of you have been murdered though; let alone burned at the stake.
My position isn't that rape is not all that bad. It is about the value of life. I am arguing that no life at all is worse than a terrible life.
Since we are all want to argue moral ranking, where do you place slavery? Since none of us have been enslaved, raped, and murdered we are all going to have to use some level of judgement here. How about when someone does something that makes us both blind and deaf? Let's all play judge and executioner.
You are going to tell me that you would rather die than live? I would rather live without arms and legs than die. I would rather be in Guantanamo undergoing the worst than die.
I know all to well what rape does to people. Do you AC?
There is just too much misinformation about this post.
State College is no in "Western Pennsylvania". And neither is any part of Ohio. Are you referring to Roethlisberger's issues? At least those had to do with "rape".
Meanwhile, there were 2 cases in State College. The one in 1998 was reported and fully investigated by the DA and multiple psychologists. The 2nd one, in 2001, was reported by the football team to the athletic department. They sat on it for whatever reason. This was prosecuted in 2012. That incident was the only one with a witness and also the only one where the charge of "rape" was determined to be "not guilty". And that victim has supposedly come forward saying he was never raped.
Football personnel shouldn't be above the law, but neither should politicians, rich people, religious figures, and other revered figures. I feel like we worry more about blaming the sport than actually fixing the problem. People don't report inappropriate behavior. And when we do, it gets ignored (speaking from personal experience).
No. There is no good argument equating murder to rape. I would rather be raped 100 times before murdered. If you equate the two, then you don't have any respect for life.
In no way am I saying rape isn't bad. If rape leads to death, then it is worse than murder. Although, it depends on the method of murder. Burning alive would be much worse.
I think they were forced to take a bailout. Even years later, after the "stress test" of banks, several banks were forced to take bailouts. This is an example of the "free enterprise" and "free markets" that people blame for our problems. The banking system is, and has been, so non-free market it isn't even funny. It is the most subsidized industry in the world.
There is a difference between: a law to do something and they don't execute on it vs a law to not do something and they still execute it
The former is around immigration and drug enforcement laws. The latter would be a direct breach of law, like torture, Patriot Act, and some gun control (city bans).
And "others only claim a write bugs" is not a bug. It only doesn't conform to your people's version of the "English language". But I will correct it to help others that don't read my language: "others only claim I write bugs"
Bugs are relative. I don't write bugs; others only claim a write bugs. Since the client is among those making the claim, then I change the code to remove what they call a bug.
I would rather here about this from Fox News than most anyone else. Just like I would rather hear about Obama issues from MSNBC and the NFL being the best American sports league from the MLB & NBA.
Refusing because you are a computer scientist or because it is a pay cut are horrible reasons and your benefits should be terminated. Now a bad back? That is a valid reason.
If only you could have worked for less money than the others...
I agree that jobs simply are not available. In your case, you could have found one, but you would have to move. Sometimes that is not possible without declaring bankruptcy.
However, if there wasn't a minimum wage, you could find a job anywhere.
With no minimum wage, you could only choose not to work. There are a billion jobs available for 1 US cent per hour. Government creates unemployment. They do it by trying to get people enough money to live, since you can't live on 1 US cent per hour. So unless minimum wage is set too low, you will have unemployment. Even with the UK system of trying to get everyone jobs...it will fall short. The question is what to do with the rest of the people. I think the government shouldn't have automatic welfare. You should sweep, repair, or build the streets for the welfare check. Maybe only 4 hrs a day so you have time to look for another job.
The GGP didn't say the rate was at a historic low. Just "deaths". So unless car exhaust is bringing people back to life, the historic low was before the invention.
The gas stations pay to put the certification logo on the pump. Basically this happens today, except the stamp is from the State or Commonwealth. However, the cost of such certification is paid for by the general fund. So those that choose not to use gas, or use it less, pay for it. Those that pay more tax could use less gas. It just distorts the market un-needlessly.
The certification agency is kept in check by things like Consumer Reports or by individuals that randomly figure it out by filling their 5 gallon container and finding out the calibration is wrong.
Likewise, in banking, information should be divulged. I see that as a good function of government. If you are going to have "public" companies, then there should be full disclosure to stockholders. Basically, most companies would not be "public" under this model. So then we don't have the crazy passive investing that we see in the stock market. You will invest in your own or a neighbor's business. You will buy private stock in a national company that belong on a trusted privately run stock exchange. There are a lot of options. We just need to be open to them and allow them to happen. Again, they need to stop skewing markets in favor of things like "public" companies. It only encourages passive investment...which is gambling.
I agree that the government can do things more efficiently. They basically operate a monopoly, which can be VERY efficient. The problem arises in the fact that you can't price things properly in a monopoly. You could have the right price, but chances are it is wrong...especially in the long term. So the quality either starts sucking or the product has too much of a cost on society.
For instance: how much should education be? how about police? firefighters? Right now, those costs are just paid as a seemingly random amount. The only thing that gives them a price is inter-city/state competition.
Banks don't care because the SEC and Fed cover them.
There are issue either way. I would just argue that a private mediator would be better in many cases. And more importantly, there is a way to do everything in either a private or public way. I don't see how a public rating agency would have handled any of that differently. The public agency won't be full of perfect little employees with the interests of the general investor at heart.
Rating agencies in a market controlled by an entity like the SEC is just a horrible idea. Between the SEC, 401Ks, and low interest rates, we are subsidizing the hell out of the stock market. It is seen as the only legitimate way to maintain wealth. So when something goes bad, they say "what else am I going to do" and gain trust in those rating agencies again.
I for one don't trust rating agencies. I think you'd be a fool to. It is like people calling out the next big stock. Everything has someone's personal special interest.
Slashdot Mirror
For those unaware with the size of the US.
0.006% suicide by firearm
0.0037% murder by firearm
0.000179% death by firearm accident
0.0102% accidental poisoning
0.0348% prescription drug reactions
But murder = murder. What are the murder rates by any weapon/methodology? I care if I lose my life, not by what mechanism.
It is selectively illegal. Games of chance are only illegal for those not associated with the government (in most areas). Investment/insurance gambling is legal but regulated enough that you need to be rich to be the "house" (on the good end).
Amazingly, casino games give house odds of 0.1%-20% per roll/hand. But PowerBall games give more than 50% house odds. Make the better ones illegal or limited in availability. And when they are there, tax the crap out of them and make them advertise gambling addiction prevention stuff.
You could think of it in reverse. They could be excavating a historic site and built a electrical substation and other buildings to assist in the operation.
Whoops. I thought this was the prime number question.
I'm not sure how these go about it, but I would:
boolean[100] notPrime = new boolean[100];
markNonPrime(notPrime, 2);
for (int n = 3; n 100; n+=2)
markNonPrime(notPrime, n);
for (int n = 2; n 100; n++)
if (!notPrime[n])
println(n);
function markNonPrime(boolean[] notPrime, int p) {
for (int n = p; n 100; p+=n)
notPrime[n] = true;
}
Because an unarmed off-duty police officer could have done the same?
You are all making assumptions of my life. I guarantee none of you have been murdered though; let alone burned at the stake.
My position isn't that rape is not all that bad. It is about the value of life. I am arguing that no life at all is worse than a terrible life.
Since we are all want to argue moral ranking, where do you place slavery? Since none of us have been enslaved, raped, and murdered we are all going to have to use some level of judgement here. How about when someone does something that makes us both blind and deaf? Let's all play judge and executioner.
You are going to tell me that you would rather die than live? I would rather live without arms and legs than die. I would rather be in Guantanamo undergoing the worst than die.
I know all to well what rape does to people. Do you AC?
There is just too much misinformation about this post.
State College is no in "Western Pennsylvania". And neither is any part of Ohio. Are you referring to Roethlisberger's issues? At least those had to do with "rape".
Meanwhile, there were 2 cases in State College. The one in 1998 was reported and fully investigated by the DA and multiple psychologists. The 2nd one, in 2001, was reported by the football team to the athletic department. They sat on it for whatever reason. This was prosecuted in 2012. That incident was the only one with a witness and also the only one where the charge of "rape" was determined to be "not guilty". And that victim has supposedly come forward saying he was never raped.
Football personnel shouldn't be above the law, but neither should politicians, rich people, religious figures, and other revered figures. I feel like we worry more about blaming the sport than actually fixing the problem. People don't report inappropriate behavior. And when we do, it gets ignored (speaking from personal experience).
No. There is no good argument equating murder to rape. I would rather be raped 100 times before murdered. If you equate the two, then you don't have any respect for life.
In no way am I saying rape isn't bad. If rape leads to death, then it is worse than murder. Although, it depends on the method of murder. Burning alive would be much worse.
I think they were forced to take a bailout. Even years later, after the "stress test" of banks, several banks were forced to take bailouts. This is an example of the "free enterprise" and "free markets" that people blame for our problems. The banking system is, and has been, so non-free market it isn't even funny. It is the most subsidized industry in the world.
There is a difference between:
a law to do something and they don't execute on it
vs
a law to not do something and they still execute it
The former is around immigration and drug enforcement laws. The latter would be a direct breach of law, like torture, Patriot Act, and some gun control (city bans).
And "others only claim a write bugs" is not a bug. It only doesn't conform to your people's version of the "English language". But I will correct it to help others that don't read my language: "others only claim I write bugs"
Bugs are relative. I don't write bugs; others only claim a write bugs. Since the client is among those making the claim, then I change the code to remove what they call a bug.
You can call one man, "President, father, husband, and Obama" and still be referring to one person.
I didn't know prayer can only be directed at Gods. Saints are honored, not deified (not sure if that is a word).
The Koch brothers. After all, their company isn't on Wall Street. So the enemy of my enemy is my "friend".
I would rather here about this from Fox News than most anyone else. Just like I would rather hear about Obama issues from MSNBC and the NFL being the best American sports league from the MLB & NBA.
Refusing because you are a computer scientist or because it is a pay cut are horrible reasons and your benefits should be terminated. Now a bad back? That is a valid reason.
If only you could have worked for less money than the others...
I agree that jobs simply are not available. In your case, you could have found one, but you would have to move. Sometimes that is not possible without declaring bankruptcy.
However, if there wasn't a minimum wage, you could find a job anywhere.
With no minimum wage, you could only choose not to work. There are a billion jobs available for 1 US cent per hour. Government creates unemployment. They do it by trying to get people enough money to live, since you can't live on 1 US cent per hour. So unless minimum wage is set too low, you will have unemployment. Even with the UK system of trying to get everyone jobs...it will fall short. The question is what to do with the rest of the people. I think the government shouldn't have automatic welfare. You should sweep, repair, or build the streets for the welfare check. Maybe only 4 hrs a day so you have time to look for another job.
luck? or he was smart enough to know the bubble was going to burst?
The GGP didn't say the rate was at a historic low. Just "deaths". So unless car exhaust is bringing people back to life, the historic low was before the invention.
The gas stations pay to put the certification logo on the pump. Basically this happens today, except the stamp is from the State or Commonwealth. However, the cost of such certification is paid for by the general fund. So those that choose not to use gas, or use it less, pay for it. Those that pay more tax could use less gas. It just distorts the market un-needlessly.
The certification agency is kept in check by things like Consumer Reports or by individuals that randomly figure it out by filling their 5 gallon container and finding out the calibration is wrong.
Likewise, in banking, information should be divulged. I see that as a good function of government. If you are going to have "public" companies, then there should be full disclosure to stockholders. Basically, most companies would not be "public" under this model. So then we don't have the crazy passive investing that we see in the stock market. You will invest in your own or a neighbor's business. You will buy private stock in a national company that belong on a trusted privately run stock exchange. There are a lot of options. We just need to be open to them and allow them to happen. Again, they need to stop skewing markets in favor of things like "public" companies. It only encourages passive investment...which is gambling.
I agree that the government can do things more efficiently. They basically operate a monopoly, which can be VERY efficient. The problem arises in the fact that you can't price things properly in a monopoly. You could have the right price, but chances are it is wrong...especially in the long term. So the quality either starts sucking or the product has too much of a cost on society.
For instance: how much should education be? how about police? firefighters? Right now, those costs are just paid as a seemingly random amount. The only thing that gives them a price is inter-city/state competition.
Banks don't care because the SEC and Fed cover them.
There are issue either way. I would just argue that a private mediator would be better in many cases. And more importantly, there is a way to do everything in either a private or public way. I don't see how a public rating agency would have handled any of that differently. The public agency won't be full of perfect little employees with the interests of the general investor at heart.
Rating agencies in a market controlled by an entity like the SEC is just a horrible idea. Between the SEC, 401Ks, and low interest rates, we are subsidizing the hell out of the stock market. It is seen as the only legitimate way to maintain wealth. So when something goes bad, they say "what else am I going to do" and gain trust in those rating agencies again.
I for one don't trust rating agencies. I think you'd be a fool to. It is like people calling out the next big stock. Everything has someone's personal special interest.
Not fraud. Extortion.