Will someone please tell me what stock to buy when they're still tiny?
Sure. How about uh... one mo... let me fill some forms... and submit..., yep ServiCo Inc.
It's very tiny, and you can buy 10% of it for the low, low price of $100,000. Just think how much that'll be worth if it gets to a 700 billion dollar market cap.
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness,
Good job I listed them as separate points then, isn't it!
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
Well, yes, if you cherry-pick social democracies to include things which are decidedly democracies then you can indeed prove that people living somewhere might not be happy.
end suffering, poverty, and eliminate inequity at every stage of life.
That sounds like three incredibly worth goals.
UBI is the most blatant example among many proposals that is very clearly a taking of $ from the highest earners, and giving it to the lowest earners.
Yes, that is generally how wealth redistribution taxes work. In fact that's how a good bit of the taxes work already, except they don't go any where nearly far enough. In the 50s, 60s and 70s golden era, tax rates were 70% at the top.
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
Selfishness? Just because people are using the information that's available to them?
Yes. The fact you can (a) physically do something and (b) it's not illegal does not make it selfish.
Perhaps the government should start planning transportation according to smart people instead of sheeps. Madness, to accuse people of selfishness when it's obviously lack of planning that's the problem.
Oh I see, you think you're "smart" and "not a sheep" because you managed to download an app. You also like to lord it over the government as fools when 20,30,40,... years ago they didn't have the foresight (like you, you didn't either) to predict the rise of smartphones, the internet and consumer GPS in this combination when building infrastructure.
Basically you are selfish and you are justifying it by telling yourself you're smarter tha nother people.
LOL OK. The problem is then your argument degenerates to "someone said something stupid on slashdot", which falls into the same kind of general category as "water is wet".
GPS is receive only, there is no transmission and no danger to aircraft even if it is turned on. Chances are it turns GPS off just to satisfy clueless airline staff and consumers.
Radio receivers aren't generally allowed. I assume this dates back from the era whne cheapass radios would piss out the IF and its considerable harmonics (linear? ha!) all over the spectrum to the point where it could interfere with the pilot's radio, so receivers got banned and this rule has been cargo-culted ever since.
You have on proof that the Russian military nerve gas---made only in Russia and used to poison an enemy of Putin after Putin made a public threat to poison his enemies---was Russian.
Leave Russia Alone!
Funnily enough, an AI (Anonymous Ivan) yesterday tried to persuade me that it cold have quite easily been Assad or Saddam Hussein. I think Comrade Putin has been skimping a little too hard on the troll training budget recently.
No.... they are expensive to build And take a long time to get the government approval to build.
No, they simply take a long time to build. Power stations are big. Big things take a long time to build. You can't just go to Harbour Freight and buy a couple of Siemens 500MW Gas turbines. Even after approval power plants take years to build.
There is possibly a pretty good size rural market in hard to deliver areas that would sign up for weekly or monthly supply deliveries right away cause they pay a ton right now for that kind of service. Think up in the mountains in areas costly to deliver to only one house on many acres.
I don't really see the use case for drones there either: they don't have the flight time/speed combo for that kind of use case. They work best in dense urban areas except that finding landing sites is really hard.
And you sound like every politician ever: fundamentally dishonest.
You made a stupid claim, I am holding you to account for that claim and you vigorously respond by pretending you said something you think is easier to defend.
It's slashdot: you can't edit posts so it's there in writing what you said.
Basically you are refusing to state whether you do or do not think it's a crime if Trump staffers colluded with the Russians. IOW You think they did, are glad they did but don't want to admit it.
As there is nothing approaching even probable suspicion that there was collusion between Trump and Russia
Hysterical deflection. This has no relevance on whether or not his staffers colluding is a problem.
Laughable.
Of course, you would laugh at the truth, wouldn't you?
Slashdot Mirror
You think the US got involved in Guatamala because of fruit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Will someone please tell me what stock to buy when they're still tiny?
Sure. How about uh... one mo... let me fill some forms... and submit..., yep ServiCo Inc.
It's very tiny, and you can buy 10% of it for the low, low price of $100,000. Just think how much that'll be worth if it gets to a 700 billion dollar market cap.
i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion
Well you babbling about communism was what gave me the first clue.
My religion tells me that I should be a communist. I'm actually not calling socialism a bad thing,
You seem to have confused socialism with the most extreme manifestations of it.
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness,
Good job I listed them as separate points then, isn't it!
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
Well, yes, if you cherry-pick social democracies to include things which are decidedly democracies then you can indeed prove that people living somewhere might not be happy.
end suffering, poverty, and eliminate inequity at every stage of life.
That sounds like three incredibly worth goals.
UBI is the most blatant example among many proposals that is very clearly a taking of $ from the highest earners, and giving it to the lowest earners.
Yes, that is generally how wealth redistribution taxes work. In fact that's how a good bit of the taxes work already, except they don't go any where nearly far enough. In the 50s, 60s and 70s golden era, tax rates were 70% at the top.
Uh, wait. The DNC is who screwed Sanders. Promising people free shit worked out great, except that it didn't jibe with the DNC's mission of sucking corporate cock. It worked out so well for Sanders that he actually attracted voters who eventually went on to vote for Trump specifically because they couldn't vote for Sanders.
I never got that. "We don't like the way the DNC sucks corporate cock, so we'll skip the middle man and do it ourselves". Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
Look, lets call a spade a spade here... he is asking for socialism.
Yes?
His platform is "democracy is dead."
what's that got to do with democracy being dead?
if you are for UBI, you are a socialist. ;)
You say that like it's a bad thing. Meanwhile people living in social democracies enjoy a high standard of living and general happiness.
no need to jump headlong into socialism at this point in time.
Why not? People living in social democracies tend to have a high standard of living and a high level of happiness.
That sounds like an alternative fact to me.
Selfishness? Just because people are using the information that's available to them?
Yes. The fact you can (a) physically do something and (b) it's not illegal does not make it selfish.
Perhaps the government should start planning transportation according to smart people instead of sheeps. Madness, to accuse people of selfishness when it's obviously lack of planning that's the problem.
Oh I see, you think you're "smart" and "not a sheep" because you managed to download an app. You also like to lord it over the government as fools when 20,30,40,... years ago they didn't have the foresight (like you, you didn't either) to predict the rise of smartphones, the internet and consumer GPS in this combination when building infrastructure.
Basically you are selfish and you are justifying it by telling yourself you're smarter tha nother people.
LOL OK. The problem is then your argument degenerates to "someone said something stupid on slashdot", which falls into the same kind of general category as "water is wet".
GPS is receive only, there is no transmission and no danger to aircraft even if it is turned on. Chances are it turns GPS off just to satisfy clueless airline staff and consumers.
Radio receivers aren't generally allowed. I assume this dates back from the era whne cheapass radios would piss out the IF and its considerable harmonics (linear? ha!) all over the spectrum to the point where it could interfere with the pilot's radio, so receivers got banned and this rule has been cargo-culted ever since.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to
So go to Gab then. You'll fit right in.
Thanks for your reply, comrade.
On another note, It's nice that the KGB seems to think that slashdot is still important enough to be infesting with pro-russian sockpuppets.
My point is they have already materialized
You said they'd reply right here. they haven't.
Please accept this special Russian Air Freshener.
You have on proof that the Russian military nerve gas---made only in Russia and used to poison an enemy of Putin after Putin made a public threat to poison his enemies---was Russian.
Leave Russia Alone!
Funnily enough, an AI (Anonymous Ivan) yesterday tried to persuade me that it cold have quite easily been Assad or Saddam Hussein. I think Comrade Putin has been skimping a little too hard on the troll training budget recently.
To which the Greens reply, and there are several of them who will make that argument right here
That doesn't seem terribly likely. If they don't materialise, will you withdraw your comment?
No one thinks you're creepy if they think you're hot. So, don't try to not be creepy, that is impossible.
Huh, I didn't realise I'm incredibly hot. I mean I guess I must be since I'm not creepy.
No.... they are expensive to build And take a long time to get the government approval to build.
No, they simply take a long time to build. Power stations are big. Big things take a long time to build. You can't just go to Harbour Freight and buy a couple of Siemens 500MW Gas turbines. Even after approval power plants take years to build.
Well since Ivan isted, I guess Dimitri and and Sergi have all the mod points.
Yeah yeah it wasn't Russia, that chap just tripped and fell on some nerve gas.
There is possibly a pretty good size rural market in hard to deliver areas that would sign up for weekly or monthly supply deliveries right away cause they pay a ton right now for that kind of service. Think up in the mountains in areas costly to deliver to only one house on many acres.
I don't really see the use case for drones there either: they don't have the flight time/speed combo for that kind of use case. They work best in dense urban areas except that finding landing sites is really hard.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistunguisable from malice.
You sound like James Risen
And you sound like every politician ever: fundamentally dishonest.
You made a stupid claim, I am holding you to account for that claim and you vigorously respond by pretending you said something you think is easier to defend.
It's slashdot: you can't edit posts so it's there in writing what you said.
No collusion, no Russiagate.
Basically you are refusing to state whether you do or do not think it's a crime if Trump staffers colluded with the Russians. IOW You think they did, are glad they did but don't want to admit it.
As there is nothing approaching even probable suspicion that there was collusion between Trump and Russia
Hysterical deflection. This has no relevance on whether or not his staffers colluding is a problem.
Laughable.
Of course, you would laugh at the truth, wouldn't you?