The Romans used money. This was accepted not because of taxation but because the coins were precious metals of known content and weight. The Roman hyperinflation came from adulterating the precious metals with base metals, and from altering the coins' weights. Hence the use in the later empire of scales and touchstones to establish the value of the currency. People reverted to barter after the fall of the empire because the legal infrastructure that it took to maintain relatively trustworthy money standards was gone.
Forbes is right that bitcoins are not money. Neither is the US Dollar any longer money. Both are, however, currency. And both are accepted for the same fundamental reason: people believe that they are portable stores of value with predictable behavior.
Your bigotry is showing. I'm not Christian and even I know the Christian answer to this, which is that the old covenant of Leviticus was replaced by a new covenant from Jesus. What is especially ironic is that the Catholic Church does not have anything against homosexuals per se, so long as they are celibate. Which, by the way, is why there are so many homosexual priests, since priests must also be celibate.
Technically, it's not at the PPA level. It's a level higher, so no, it's not every program in the budget, actually. There are some that will not have that cover (because they're small), but most of the cuts allow for a lot more flexibility in how they are cut than it would at first appear. As it happens, the President is using that flexibility to make the cuts as bad as possible, rather than as easy as possible. So I'm saying that nothing bad must happen, but that doesn't mean that nothing bad will happen.
Frankly, if we can't cut the budget back to where it was in the scary dark ages of, say, 2010 without the world falling apart, then we have way bigger problems than this sequester. But in actual fact, we are not talking about cutting anything, but about slowing the rate of growth in programs. So really, it's all crap political theater.
Fine. There is one department whose budget will be a tiny bit less. Do you argue with the basic premise that the government will, overall, spend more money than last year even after the sequester, and that this is hardly some epic disaster?
I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls. But I do have to note that the Republican-controlled House has been passing budgets while the Dem-controlled Senate has not, which is why we've been running on continuing resolutions (and thus running up $1T per year in new debt). I also have to note that the Republican-controlled House has pushed through at least three bills to avoid the sequester, but the Dem-controlled Senate has killed all of them. I also have to note that the President and the Dem-controlled Senate have not put forward any plan except vague notions of raising more taxes on "the rich," which is their answer to every question, apparently, including "Where shall we have lunch." Moreover, I have to note that the President has threatened to veto all of the ways the Republicans have proposed to avoid the sequester. Which I must finally note was in fact the President's idea as a lever to get the Republicans in the House to agree to tax increases, not the last time that taxes were raised, but the time before that.
I don't trust the Republicans in government further than I can comfortably spit a rat, but take off your partisan blinders for a moment and look around. The world is both weirder and more wonderful than your blinkered view will allow in.
There isn't a single Federal department that will not spend more money this year even with the sequester than they spent last year. The $85B in cuts from the sequester is somehow magical: the whole government — every basic function — apparently falls apart without this sliver of money (in a $3.6T overall spending plan), again noting that they will still spend more money than last year, even with the sequester. Amazing, really.
Wait! You don't think.... No! Surely politicians wouldn't play games with government services for political gain? Say it isn't so!
I'd just like the service they do provide (a decent 20MBit) to stay up and maintain low latency. I have experienced numerous periods where service just goes away, and even more where packet loss climbs drastically or the latency goes through the roof. I don't care about gigabit speeds as much as I care about reliability. Deliver the latter and I'll think about paying for the former.
I've never actually met or read anyone who argues that climate doesn't change. In fact, that was one of the original criticisms of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as a hypothesis: climate changes, and the current/recent climate differences do not appear to be outside of normal ranges. But, you know, nice straw man and mockery and all.
And yet, between YouTube, iTMS, Amazon, a local indie station, and satellite radio, I am finding and hearing more great music than any time since the early 80s. And far more of the money I'm spending on music is going to the artists than did then. So in short, I think you're wrong.
Knowing where a person is coming from is useful. I did not use "activist" in a context that implies a negative, but it certainly implies a bias. I, too, have a bia on issues of interest to me; I think everyone does. But do keep in mind that someone who is an activist on a particular issue is going to have a very different viewpoint from someone who is not.
I doubt that would stop them for a moment. After all, the Muslims are constantly on about how we can't fight them during Ramadan, but they fight each other all through Ramadan. I suspect Iran would not hesitate a moment before killing millions of Arabs (the Iranians are Persian after all, and the Arabs they'd be killing are largely Sunni anyway, while the Iranians are Shi'a) and destroying Islam's "third holiest site," which became so rather notably about the time that Israel took control of it. Odd, that. In any event, I certainly wouldn't count on the Iranians being held back from striking Israel directly for these reasons. They aren't likely to attack Israel directly, though, mainly because Israel has a survivable nuclear force, and would immolate Iran in response.
Actually, I suspect that you misunderstand their objective. Oh, maybe stopping a US invasion is a secondary objective, but I don't think that's their primary objective. Their primary objective seems to be (if you take their word for it) bringing about a new Caliphate under Shi'a dominance. To that end, nuclear weapons would be a huge advantage.
Iran wants to meddle deeply in the affairs of its neighbors, maybe assassinate those who don't play along, support those who strike at Israel (HAMAS and Hizb'allah, for instance) and the like. This furthers their objective of establishing a renewed Caliphate that they control. So when they do those things today, the US and the Saudis and the Emirates and others fight back in numerous ways. But we are very, very, very limited in what we can do once they have working nuclear weapons. And so even if they don't strike Israel (which they might, if they felt it could bring about their objectives), their possession of nuclear weapons would be hugely destabilizing for the region, and not in good ways.
The two most likely responses though are that Israel would strike Iran to prevent them getting nuclear weapons (which might require a pre-emptive nuclear attack by Israel, given the range) or that the Saudis would also obtain nuclear weapons in an attempt to balance the situation and limit Iran's options. Basically, the Middle East is in the process of descending into an even bigger mess than it has been the last century, or millenium depending on how you measure it, and the US is not only not the prime mover in this, it's basically being ignored by all sides.
Looking at his bio, most of his work for FAS seems to be arguing against missile defense. He seems to be a bit of an activist. Basically, he comes across as a bit of an ostrich about Iran's nuclear program: nuclear weapons are bad, and war is bad; therefore if the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons, it justifies ballistic missile defense (which he's against) and possibly an attack (which he's against) to stop Iran from reaching their goal; therefore Iran must not be seeking nuclear weapons. Not exactly a scientific chain of argument, but it seems to be the path he's on (based on that last link, and two of his other articles that I read through).
That's not what WMD means. WMD is a term that replaced NBC or CBN or a variety of other acronyms to differentiate chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from other weapons. It's a useful distinction (between weapons that are designed so that their normal use kills over a large area with each use, and those which kill in small increments). By your usage, a knife is a WMD if the population being attacked is unarmed.
Slashdot Mirror
You buy computers, right?
Forbes is right that bitcoins are not money. Neither is the US Dollar any longer money. Both are, however, currency. And both are accepted for the same fundamental reason: people believe that they are portable stores of value with predictable behavior.
If he reestablishes the martial orders and calls a crusade, if consider conversion.
Your bigotry is showing. I'm not Christian and even I know the Christian answer to this, which is that the old covenant of Leviticus was replaced by a new covenant from Jesus. What is especially ironic is that the Catholic Church does not have anything against homosexuals per se, so long as they are celibate. Which, by the way, is why there are so many homosexual priests, since priests must also be celibate.
Frankly, if we can't cut the budget back to where it was in the scary dark ages of, say, 2010 without the world falling apart, then we have way bigger problems than this sequester. But in actual fact, we are not talking about cutting anything, but about slowing the rate of growth in programs. So really, it's all crap political theater.
Fine. There is one department whose budget will be a tiny bit less. Do you argue with the basic premise that the government will, overall, spend more money than last year even after the sequester, and that this is hardly some epic disaster?
I don't trust the Republicans in government further than I can comfortably spit a rat, but take off your partisan blinders for a moment and look around. The world is both weirder and more wonderful than your blinkered view will allow in.
Wait! You don't think.... No! Surely politicians wouldn't play games with government services for political gain? Say it isn't so!
There was nothing wrong with the paint. The rocket is white. So are the wisps of vapor partially obscuring the S clearly painted on the rocket.
I'd just like the service they do provide (a decent 20MBit) to stay up and maintain low latency. I have experienced numerous periods where service just goes away, and even more where packet loss climbs drastically or the latency goes through the roof. I don't care about gigabit speeds as much as I care about reliability. Deliver the latter and I'll think about paying for the former.
You should check out Glass Hammer. I think you'd like them.
I've encountered people who doubt that the climate is warming. I said that I hadn't encountered people who claim that climate does not change.
I've never actually met or read anyone who argues that climate doesn't change. In fact, that was one of the original criticisms of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as a hypothesis: climate changes, and the current/recent climate differences do not appear to be outside of normal ranges. But, you know, nice straw man and mockery and all.
I take it you don't spend much time around farms, for instance. Heck, a lot of the tractors now have air conditioned cabs.
If you live in the US, you do. This was a NOAA (hence government, hence paid by taxes) report.
And yeah, it's crap, but it strokes the malthusians and doomsayers nicely, so it will be popular crap.
And yet, between YouTube, iTMS, Amazon, a local indie station, and satellite radio, I am finding and hearing more great music than any time since the early 80s. And far more of the money I'm spending on music is going to the artists than did then. So in short, I think you're wrong.
You're proving his point: statistically no one uses Linux on the desktop.
Knowing where a person is coming from is useful. I did not use "activist" in a context that implies a negative, but it certainly implies a bias. I, too, have a bia on issues of interest to me; I think everyone does. But do keep in mind that someone who is an activist on a particular issue is going to have a very different viewpoint from someone who is not.
You'd think the government would be all over the Central Authentication Service.
I doubt that would stop them for a moment. After all, the Muslims are constantly on about how we can't fight them during Ramadan, but they fight each other all through Ramadan. I suspect Iran would not hesitate a moment before killing millions of Arabs (the Iranians are Persian after all, and the Arabs they'd be killing are largely Sunni anyway, while the Iranians are Shi'a) and destroying Islam's "third holiest site," which became so rather notably about the time that Israel took control of it. Odd, that. In any event, I certainly wouldn't count on the Iranians being held back from striking Israel directly for these reasons. They aren't likely to attack Israel directly, though, mainly because Israel has a survivable nuclear force, and would immolate Iran in response.
Iran wants to meddle deeply in the affairs of its neighbors, maybe assassinate those who don't play along, support those who strike at Israel (HAMAS and Hizb'allah, for instance) and the like. This furthers their objective of establishing a renewed Caliphate that they control. So when they do those things today, the US and the Saudis and the Emirates and others fight back in numerous ways. But we are very, very, very limited in what we can do once they have working nuclear weapons. And so even if they don't strike Israel (which they might, if they felt it could bring about their objectives), their possession of nuclear weapons would be hugely destabilizing for the region, and not in good ways.
The two most likely responses though are that Israel would strike Iran to prevent them getting nuclear weapons (which might require a pre-emptive nuclear attack by Israel, given the range) or that the Saudis would also obtain nuclear weapons in an attempt to balance the situation and limit Iran's options. Basically, the Middle East is in the process of descending into an even bigger mess than it has been the last century, or millenium depending on how you measure it, and the US is not only not the prime mover in this, it's basically being ignored by all sides.
Looking at his bio, most of his work for FAS seems to be arguing against missile defense. He seems to be a bit of an activist. Basically, he comes across as a bit of an ostrich about Iran's nuclear program: nuclear weapons are bad, and war is bad; therefore if the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons, it justifies ballistic missile defense (which he's against) and possibly an attack (which he's against) to stop Iran from reaching their goal; therefore Iran must not be seeking nuclear weapons. Not exactly a scientific chain of argument, but it seems to be the path he's on (based on that last link, and two of his other articles that I read through).
That's not what WMD means. WMD is a term that replaced NBC or CBN or a variety of other acronyms to differentiate chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from other weapons. It's a useful distinction (between weapons that are designed so that their normal use kills over a large area with each use, and those which kill in small increments). By your usage, a knife is a WMD if the population being attacked is unarmed.
+1 Funny
Officially? Really? Read up about the Kulaks before you talk about the "official" numbers.