Quite the opposite. "No replacement for displacement" trades meaning for rhyme. Part of the original phrase was a comment on engine design philosophy - in general, Detroit "big iron" engines got their power from, and were measured in, cubic inches, while European engines got their power by being higher revving (and were measured in liters or cc).
So, reflective of the general "US vs. the world" tone of the summary, "no substitute for cubic inches" fits much better.
it's there's no replacement for displacement. You ignoranus.
"There's no substitute for cubic inches," goes at least back to the 1950's, as shown by this Car & Driver article from 1957. I suspect the one you use came later, and developed as a cute rephrasing. But you're free to try and find a reference dating to before 1957.
"Democrats feel the rich need to be paying their fair share of the tax load instead taking handouts from the government in the form of corporate welfare thereby shifting the tax burden onto the lower classes."
The top 10% of income earners pays over 68% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay over 35% of all income taxes. Oh, and those lower classes (the bottom 50% of income earners)? They pay less than 3% of all income tax.
So, if the Democrats actually wanted "fair," they'd be reducing taxes on higher earners. It's disingenuous doublespeak to claim that reducing a tax is a "welfare handout."
Perhaps you should learn more English before commenting. "Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" means.
"He's talking about people who deny climate changed in the past twenty years, or even in the past 100."
That applies to both sides. When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation." Or when they point out evidence that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, it will be derisively dismissed.
But then there are those on the same side who will mention a 20-100 year period because it suits their argument.
What comparison would you do? Bitcoin vs USD? Then, when the ratio changes, which one moved? Gold? Real Estate? Loaves of bread/gallons of milk?
If you're not happy with comparing a currency to things which are supposed to represent value, such as the stock market or earnings potential, what do you suggest?
In any case, the comparison was already accepted in the GP, which went on to argue the magnitude with pulled-from-his-ass numbers.
Sounds like he knows exactly how the Fed works. Don't assume "print" is meant in the literal sense. Very little of the money supply is actual physical currency.
"US crica 2008 was a disasterous crash. Yet it was less of a drop/fluxuation than what occurs daily for bitcoin"
The stock market dropped over 50% (DJIA). The US unemployment rate doubled (Oct07-Oct09).
Support your claim that Bitcoin fluxuates by more than 2x daily, or admit you're ignorantly making things up. You can't, because it's never happed on even a single day, let alone consistently as you claim.
"The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly."
Value in comparison to what, exactly? Where is your proof that Bitcoin scams cause its value to "swing wildly?"
Do you not consider the economic events circa 2008 to be the result of scams related to US dollars? Why don't you consider the current US Federal Reserve policy of printing money in order to prop up the economy to be a scam?
Bitcoin has been more stable than multiple national currencies (Venezuela being only a recent example).
Rather than making unsupported blanket claims, perhaps you should focus on documented facts.
" Bitcoin's reputation is fucking awful as a scammers paradise."
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value. If Bitcoin didn't do that, there would be no ability to use it to scam.
Why aren't you claiming that dollars have an even worse reputation because they're involved in even more scams? Are you insane, or do you refuse to touch US currency?
"they signed a settlement agreement in the court room"
Source? The link will take you to a link with the consent decree, which was directly between the FCC and Smart City. I don't see where a court was involved anywhere.
That's an oxymoron. "Scientific" implies testable hypothesis. But, as soon as one of these models deviates from reality, they change the model instead of the hypothesis.
It should mean that Lenovo gets prosecuted for violation of the CFAA:
knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
Deliberately replacing a file I've installed with one of their own sure seems like intentional damage to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a broadsword concealed in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
Quite the opposite. "No replacement for displacement" trades meaning for rhyme. Part of the original phrase was a comment on engine design philosophy - in general, Detroit "big iron" engines got their power from, and were measured in, cubic inches, while European engines got their power by being higher revving (and were measured in liters or cc).
So, reflective of the general "US vs. the world" tone of the summary, "no substitute for cubic inches" fits much better.
"There's no substitute for cubic inches," goes at least back to the 1950's, as shown by this Car & Driver article from 1957. I suspect the one you use came later, and developed as a cute rephrasing. But you're free to try and find a reference dating to before 1957.
What about Google's right to forget to censor search results?
Do you know what "otherwise" means?
"Democrats feel the rich need to be paying their fair share of the tax load instead taking handouts from the government in the form of corporate welfare thereby shifting the tax burden onto the lower classes."
The top 10% of income earners pays over 68% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay over 35% of all income taxes. Oh, and those lower classes (the bottom 50% of income earners)? They pay less than 3% of all income tax.
So, if the Democrats actually wanted "fair," they'd be reducing taxes on higher earners. It's disingenuous doublespeak to claim that reducing a tax is a "welfare handout."
"The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand."
Airlines don't fly a plane. They fly fleets of planes. Increasing ticket prices on fuller flights is one way of balancing demand.
You're free to start your own airline if you think you have a better way to do it profitably.
But who's more of a peer than the author themselves?
I thought it was limes with copper and zinc strips poked into them.
...as long as you remember to do an occasional FRE("") in your code.
Perhaps you should learn more English before commenting. "Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" means.
Well, since you can't work Google, you apparently just make things up.
VEF 1 year max/min (dolartoday.com) 696.77/82.46 ~= 845% (real world VEF/USD exchange rate, not the "official," government regulated one)
Bitcoin max/min (coindesk.com) over past year 516.16/177.28 ~= ~291%
Both relative to USD (although the ratio is inverted) for simplicity.
Googletard.
You missed the forest for the trees. "Cherry picking" occurs on both sides of the debate, which is political, not scientific.
"He's talking about people who deny climate changed in the past twenty years, or even in the past 100."
That applies to both sides. When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation." Or when they point out evidence that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, it will be derisively dismissed.
But then there are those on the same side who will mention a 20-100 year period because it suits their argument.
Ah, so you're claiming that Bitcoin scams cause fluctuations in USD. OK, whatever.
What comparison would you do? Bitcoin vs USD? Then, when the ratio changes, which one moved? Gold? Real Estate? Loaves of bread/gallons of milk?
If you're not happy with comparing a currency to things which are supposed to represent value, such as the stock market or earnings potential, what do you suggest?
In any case, the comparison was already accepted in the GP, which went on to argue the magnitude with pulled-from-his-ass numbers.
Sounds like he knows exactly how the Fed works. Don't assume "print" is meant in the literal sense. Very little of the money supply is actual physical currency.
"US crica 2008 was a disasterous crash. Yet it was less of a drop/fluxuation than what occurs daily for bitcoin"
The stock market dropped over 50% (DJIA). The US unemployment rate doubled (Oct07-Oct09).
Support your claim that Bitcoin fluxuates by more than 2x daily, or admit you're ignorantly making things up. You can't, because it's never happed on even a single day, let alone consistently as you claim.
"The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly."
Value in comparison to what, exactly? Where is your proof that Bitcoin scams cause its value to "swing wildly?"
Do you not consider the economic events circa 2008 to be the result of scams related to US dollars? Why don't you consider the current US Federal Reserve policy of printing money in order to prop up the economy to be a scam?
Bitcoin has been more stable than multiple national currencies (Venezuela being only a recent example).
Rather than making unsupported blanket claims, perhaps you should focus on documented facts.
" Bitcoin's reputation is fucking awful as a scammers paradise."
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value. If Bitcoin didn't do that, there would be no ability to use it to scam.
Why aren't you claiming that dollars have an even worse reputation because they're involved in even more scams? Are you insane, or do you refuse to touch US currency?
"they signed a settlement agreement in the court room"
Source? The link will take you to a link with the consent decree, which was directly between the FCC and Smart City. I don't see where a court was involved anywhere.
"scientific models"
That's an oxymoron. "Scientific" implies testable hypothesis. But, as soon as one of these models deviates from reality, they change the model instead of the hypothesis.
"Engineering costs are doubleplusgood."
Thanks, I learned that "engineering costs" are newspeak for "cost-plus contracts."
Deliberately replacing a file I've installed with one of their own sure seems like intentional damage to me.