Since all this "money" is just pretend and not backed by anything with intrinsic value, why not just pretend it didn't happen? Set the balances back to where they were before the digital "theft" and call it good.
Any banks that got some magical, ridiculously high deposits from out of the blue, well, you're S.O.L.
You can't buy homeowner's insurance after the house burns down, so why should insurance companies be forced to pay for pre-existing conditions? Neither healthcare nor insurance is a right. Read up on the Constitution.
A person's income (if they work for someone else) is based ENTIRELY on how much the employer views their effort is worth.
THAT'S IT. It's not about "oh, poor Jonny works so hard at the mill and it's back-breaking labor," it's about how much someone else is willing to pay him to do it.
If my effort is valued as higher than another person's, why should I be punished (taxed) for that? People who feel this way (key word FEEL) are unable to distinguish effort from value.
You can survive in a small town on $10k a year. I know people who have done it. If you make $10k a year you don't pay any income taxes, so here is a realistic breakdown:
Income 833
Rent 300 Electric 50 Gas 30 Water 35 Food 250 Bus Pass 40
Net 128
If you get creative with the food budget and do some coupon work, you can lower the food outlay to $100 a month.
It sucks, your apartment will be an efficiency, and you will definitely have to watch Game of Thrones at a friend's house, but it can be - and has been - done.
"III What "Arms" Are Protected? As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by (p.158)settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense."[53] Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.[54]
"Even against the greatest of odds, there is something in the human spirit - a magic blend of skill, faith, and valor - that can lift men from certain defeat to incredible victory." - Walter Lord
Second Amendment Explained "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There are three parts to this sentence. The first part means, in current layman's terms: We want to be a free, independent country, and to do that, we need to be able to defend ourselves from other countries. This requires us to have an army. The second part means, in current layman's terms: We accept that we need an army for protection from other countries, but how do we keep this army from just saying, "ok, WE are in charge now, and you people will do what WE say." The answer: the PEOPLE will have a right to keep and bear arms, to have weapons and be able to use them if necessary against not only criminals, but against the government if the government oversteps its bounds. The third part means, again in current layman's terms: Your individual right to weapons may not be limited in any way. This includes any procedure or law that has a limiting impact on the ability of a free person to acquire arms. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting amounts or types of items purchased, etc., are ALL unconstitutional.
Mass shootings are actually exceedingly rare. The majority of these rarely executed shootings are carried out within families and are not performed in public. Please do some research. Perhaps start with reading the works of James Allen Fox, undoubtedly the most highly qualified expert on this matter.
While we are on the topic of the 2nd amendment, please take a moment to read this explanation and respond with your thoughts.
Second Amendment Explained
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are three parts to this sentence. The first part means, in current layman's terms:
We want to be a free, independent country, and to do that, we need to be able to defend ourselves from other countries. This requires us to have an army.
The second part means, in current layman's terms:
We accept that we need an army for protection from other countries, but how do we keep this army from just saying, "ok, WE are in charge now, and you people will do what WE say." The answer: the PEOPLE will have a right to keep and bear arms, to have weapons and be able to use them if necessary against not only criminals, but against the government if the government oversteps its bounds.
The third part means, again in current layman's terms:
Your individual right to weapons may not be limited in any way. This includes any procedure or law that has a limiting impact on the ability of a free person to acquire arms. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting amounts or types of items purchased, etc., are ALL
unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
See you drips later, I'm going outside.
Since all this "money" is just pretend and not backed by anything with intrinsic value, why not just pretend it didn't happen? Set the balances back to where they were before the digital "theft" and call it good.
Any banks that got some magical, ridiculously high deposits from out of the blue, well, you're S.O.L.
...unless you're a nurse, then you still get treated like crap.
(the above statement is based on my own anecdotal evidence and is in no way intended to be taken scientifically)
(also, Wik)
Top. Notch.
[applause]
"What great ideas has this jerk ever come up with?"
The aqueduct?
"...If you try to "chop" or "hammer" something in space, it doesn't work given Newton's laws of motions..."
False.
All you have to do is use diametrically opposed chopping or hammering forces in a closed-system framework.
Ya beat me to it, and by quite a while.
That's what I get for not refreshing before posting.
"...or having flat-pack components that are expanded in situ..."
So the future of the space program is to be more like Ikea?
*ducks*
Did anyone else read that as "Longest-SURVIVING"?
Does this enterprise only take gold coins?
I think the more important concept with your toaster analogy is:
Can the toaster, upon sensing the prescribed toast-popping temperature internally, choose to NOT pop the toast?
You are not the Kwisatz Haderach.
You can't buy homeowner's insurance after the house burns down, so why should insurance companies be forced to pay for pre-existing conditions? Neither healthcare nor insurance is a right. Read up on the Constitution.
Wrong, so wrong, so very, very wrong.
A person's income (if they work for someone else) is based ENTIRELY on how much the employer views their effort is worth.
THAT'S IT. It's not about "oh, poor Jonny works so hard at the mill and it's back-breaking labor," it's about how much someone else is willing to pay him to do it.
If my effort is valued as higher than another person's, why should I be punished (taxed) for that? People who feel this way (key word FEEL) are unable to distinguish effort from value.
Twitter is a social seismograph:
It lets people know what's shakin'.
You can survive in a small town on $10k a year. I know people who have done it. If you make $10k a year you don't pay any income taxes, so here is a realistic breakdown:
Income 833
Rent 300
Electric 50
Gas 30
Water 35
Food 250
Bus Pass 40
Net 128
If you get creative with the food budget and do some coupon work, you can lower the food outlay to $100 a month.
It sucks, your apartment will be an efficiency, and you will definitely have to watch Game of Thrones at a friend's house, but it can be - and has been - done.
I stopped using traditional "passwords" years ago and switched to a derivation algorithm instead.
I never have to remember a password because I can derive each one easily. Does anyone else use this strategy?
"III
What "Arms" Are Protected?
As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by (p.158)settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense."[53] Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.[54]
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hal-lin.html
"...modern weapons civilians can own don't stand a chance against the government."
Tell that to the numerous groups that have been and currently are still successfully engaging first-world military organizations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_guerrilla_movements
"Even against the greatest of odds, there is something in the human spirit - a magic blend of skill, faith, and valor - that can lift men from certain defeat to incredible victory." - Walter Lord
Second Amendment Explained
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
There are three parts to this sentence. The first part means, in current
layman's terms:
We want to be a free, independent country, and to do that, we need to be
able to defend ourselves from other countries. This requires us to
have an army.
The second part means, in current layman's terms:
We accept that we need an army for protection from other countries, but
how do we keep this army from just saying, "ok, WE are in charge
now, and you people will do what WE say." The answer: the PEOPLE
will have a right to keep and bear arms, to have weapons and be able
to use them if necessary against not only criminals, but against the
government if the government oversteps its bounds.
The third part means, again in current layman's terms:
Your individual right to weapons may not be limited in any way. This
includes any procedure or law that has a limiting impact on the
ability of a free person to acquire arms. Waiting periods, background
checks, limiting amounts or types of items purchased, etc., are ALL
unconstitutional.
Mass shootings are actually exceedingly rare. The majority of these rarely executed shootings are carried out within families and are not performed in public. Please do some research. Perhaps start with reading the works of James Allen Fox, undoubtedly the most highly qualified expert on this matter.
Here you go:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/...
While we are on the topic of the 2nd amendment, please take a moment to read this explanation and respond with your thoughts.
Second Amendment Explained
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are three parts to this sentence. The first part means, in current layman's terms: We want to be a free, independent country, and to do that, we need to be able to defend ourselves from other countries. This requires us to have an army.
The second part means, in current layman's terms: We accept that we need an army for protection from other countries, but how do we keep this army from just saying, "ok, WE are in charge now, and you people will do what WE say." The answer: the PEOPLE will have a right to keep and bear arms, to have weapons and be able to use them if necessary against not only criminals, but against the government if the government oversteps its bounds.
The third part means, again in current layman's terms: Your individual right to weapons may not be limited in any way. This includes any procedure or law that has a limiting impact on the ability of a free person to acquire arms. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting amounts or types of items purchased, etc., are ALL unconstitutional.
Easy there, Randy. This isn't the SarcastaBall Hug-a-thon.
Check out what eventually happened to that D.A.:
http://www.kltv.com/story/15888974/east-texas-district-attorney-faces-federal-criminal-charges