Well, adulterers seem to spread about (not a real stat) 67% of all stds. I propose we put a big bold 'A,' written in red, on all 'known' adulterers forheads, forcably, if necessary. You see, it would help these individuals become better people by constanty reminding them of the fact that we hate them and don't accept them in our culture. Now where can we find $43 million in red ink?
Seriously, is this guy gonna make people carve 666's into thier forheads too? Burn witches perhaps? Test high-tech tracking devices on expendable homeless people? Either this article is a hoax, or I'm kinda pissed.
Did you see the "wearable suit of armor" on the first link
Here's a quote from the page: "An amazing gift. A full suit of armor for a warrior. Frame included to be a unique decor accent. For the person who has everything and is interested in being powerful."
I laughed my ass off imagining the look of glee on some zit-faced 16 year old d&d player's face when they foud this under thier christmas tree.
Wow, a (assumption) female makes a post about Valentine's day gifts and all anyone can think of is sex. I'm assuming what you meant to say was: "What should I spend this $100 dollars on?" In that case, I'd recommend using that money to make the day special, rather than buying a gift. Granted, I like getting gifts, but if I had a significant other, I'd honestly rather just spend the entire day w/her doing cute lovey stuff than get a gift (or ejaculate, for that matter). I say you should just plan to have a fun day w/him, and use the money to buy something cheap, odd, and irrelevant. Just go over to his place (or have him come to yours, whatever), give him a big hug and kiss, and pull out the weird object you bought. Here's an example: "Oh sweetie, I love you so much!" *smile* "...and look, I have play-doh! Happy birthday!" then pull out a 'Get well soon' card or something. Seriously, he'll laugh his ass off, which will in turn start things off nicely. Perhaps even take the play-doh (or whatever) out and throw it at him. Maybe I just have odd tastes, but crazy, random stuff like that has made my day more than once. If he's not the type to appreciate stuff that's a little out of the norm though, consider using the money get something that requires both of you to do something w/it. Exe. Take him out to an arcade or get some movies or something. The whole point is, it really doesn't matter what the gift is at all, what matters is the relationship, and the gift can be used to make the relationship interesting. I guess what I mean is: It's not what it is, it's how you use it. You can make anything blow his socks off if you really put some thought into it.
Just be creative, mean what you say, and make the day fun.
Most states in the U.S. now have state lotteries that flush money into state
treasuries. If we create a national lottery, the proceeds would go into the
central account and get distributed to every citizen of the United
States.
Remember those paper towels in your highschool science lab? You know, the ones
that do a really good job of moving water around without actually
removing any? let's say that everyone baught a lotto ticket for $1. let's
say 40% of the $ made goes to the winner(s). Everyone would get $0.60 back. That's the whole
point to the lotto. It turns a small amount of wealth from a large amount of
people to a large amount of wealth for a small amount of poeple.
This would do the exact opposite of what the author wants:
Create one or two more wealthy people and make the poor ones $0.40 poorer. Swish.
The only thing similar that turns a large amount of money from a small amount of people into a small amount of money for a large amount of people are fancy auctions (usually fund raisers to help poor, save blank, etc.). Makes more sense for a society filled with idle rich/dirt poor.
Ok, now that all of my whining is over with, I'lll whine about something different. This whole situation is ridiculus. If everything was automated, do you have any idea how large of a demand for non-automated services there would be? We're talking huge. If McDonald's, Burger King, etc. all went to automation, This would spark a whole new market for non-automated fast food. Ad:
"Real food. Real people. Eat at Friendly Burger."
Even if it costs more to eat at Friendly Burger (hope that's not a real name), the price would be justified because of the human interaction. Belive it or not, some people even go places just to have their order taken and chat with the person behind the counter. They're called "regulars." The reason why full automation in service-oriented tasks would never last is simple: People like people better than machines. No one wants to be served drinks by a half-naked android. No one wants to be sold clothing by a tin can with no opinion of what's fashionable. No one wants to explain to a robot why they're pissed off about their soup being cold. What about security gaurds? What's to stop shoplifters? The camera? Ha! Shoplifters don't have images on file, you need to catch them red-handed. Give the robots guns? Lol. How hard would it be to get the tech specs on your waiter? How hard would it be to screw it up? Every store would at least need some type of human supervision because not every kid in NYC/LA/etc. has their prints on file, and no one wants to give robots the authority to detain anyone. Automation will never eliminate anything, not even redundancy. Just change what's considered redundant. Just change everything.
4) Even if inflation is bad, how is seizing some of the people's holdings by printing money and thus causing inflation, worse than seizing some of the people's holdings by grabbing it in the form of taxes before they even see it?
Because printing money is taking money without ever seeing it, and allows the gov., rather than you, determine how much to take and when to take it. Imagine this:
America goes to war. The very next day, you need $500 to get a happy meal. Why? Because last night the goverment printed off enough money to fund the war, and 'decided' for you how much everything you own is worth in comparison to what it thinks the war is worth.
Another example: let's say the inflation induced by the gov printing $ causes the value of the dollar to drop 100n% per year. In x years, your dollar would be worth 100((1-n)^x) percent of its original value. So what is n? If the government printed $1 for itself for each in circulation, n is.5, if it printed $1 for every hunderd, n is.01, so what if n =.05? How much would a Coke be in 50 years?
If people did not keep inflation down, it would eventually cost less to wipe your ass with cash than it would to buy toilet paper. It would cost $100 to print 80 $1 bills. Bill Gates would be worth (NARN) 9.9 tetra-giga-foobar-gizillian (almost half the price of peice of cheesecake). Seriously though, it dosn't take a genious to realize why massive inflation is not a good thing. I, for one, don't want 1 yen to equal 5.3 dollars in 12.7 years.
The point is, there are lots of places to put ads on publicly-owned infrastructure and those ads would generate billions of dollars in revenue. If all that revenue adds up to $100 billion per year flowing into the central account, then each citizen of the United States gets a check for about $350 per year.
Hey, it worked for NetZero, why not America? I can see it now:
"Money was meant to be free!"
Besides, witness what happened with other titles that limited saving. Outcry from the buyers, and usually saving anywhere is added in the first patch.
This is exactly what killed gaming. This is why major games lack creativity and look like they were designed in Hollywood. Deviate slightly from the 'marketable' algo and your sales drop. I miss the inventiveness aspect of gaming... Remember when you used to be able to go to the $9.99 section of a software store and actually be able to purchase high-quality multi-platform games that didn't all look like a variation of Quake || Myst || Warcraft || Diablo? Sigh...
How about this: Make it beneficial to NOT save. Resident Evil and Chromium both have the right idea: In RE, each save used up an item (an otherwise useless Ink Ribbon), which in turn used up an inventory slot. In Chromium, If you bypass a proctective sheild, you get another life. I like a combitation of theese ideas. Perhaps saving the game should require the sacrifice of a particularly powerful item (that may just save your life). This way you are left with two choices: Try to advance with the benifit of the item, or lose the item as an 'insurance fee,' with the benefit of being able to re-play that part.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, adulterers seem to spread about (not a real stat) 67% of all stds. I propose we put a big bold 'A,' written in red, on all 'known' adulterers forheads, forcably, if necessary. You see, it would help these individuals become better people by constanty reminding them of the fact that we hate them and don't accept them in our culture. Now where can we find $43 million in red ink? Seriously, is this guy gonna make people carve 666's into thier forheads too? Burn witches perhaps? Test high-tech tracking devices on expendable homeless people? Either this article is a hoax, or I'm kinda pissed.
Did you see the "wearable suit of armor" on the first link
Here's a quote from the page: "An amazing gift. A full suit of armor for a warrior. Frame included to be a unique decor accent. For the person who has everything and is interested in being powerful."
I laughed my ass off imagining the look of glee on some zit-faced 16 year old d&d player's face when they foud this under thier christmas tree.
Wow, a (assumption) female makes a post about Valentine's day gifts and all anyone can think of is sex. I'm assuming what you meant to say was: "What should I spend this $100 dollars on?" In that case, I'd recommend using that money to make the day special, rather than buying a gift. Granted, I like getting gifts, but if I had a significant other, I'd honestly rather just spend the entire day w/her doing cute lovey stuff than get a gift (or ejaculate, for that matter). I say you should just plan to have a fun day w/him, and use the money to buy something cheap, odd, and irrelevant. Just go over to his place (or have him come to yours, whatever), give him a big hug and kiss, and pull out the weird object you bought. Here's an example: "Oh sweetie, I love you so much!" *smile* "...and look, I have play-doh! Happy birthday!" then pull out a 'Get well soon' card or something. Seriously, he'll laugh his ass off, which will in turn start things off nicely. Perhaps even take the play-doh (or whatever) out and throw it at him. Maybe I just have odd tastes, but crazy, random stuff like that has made my day more than once. If he's not the type to appreciate stuff that's a little out of the norm though, consider using the money get something that requires both of you to do something w/it. Exe. Take him out to an arcade or get some movies or something. The whole point is, it really doesn't matter what the gift is at all, what matters is the relationship, and the gift can be used to make the relationship interesting. I guess what I mean is: It's not what it is, it's how you use it. You can make anything blow his socks off if you really put some thought into it. Just be creative, mean what you say, and make the day fun.
Most states in the U.S. now have state lotteries that flush money into state treasuries. If we create a national lottery, the proceeds would go into the central account and get distributed to every citizen of the United States.
Remember those paper towels in your highschool science lab? You know, the ones that do a really good job of moving water around without actually removing any? let's say that everyone baught a lotto ticket for $1. let's say 40% of the $ made goes to the winner(s). Everyone would get $0.60 back. That's the whole point to the lotto. It turns a small amount of wealth from a large amount of people to a large amount of wealth for a small amount of poeple. This would do the exact opposite of what the author wants:
Create one or two more wealthy people and make the poor ones $0.40 poorer. Swish. The only thing similar that turns a large amount of money from a small amount of people into a small amount of money for a large amount of people are fancy auctions (usually fund raisers to help poor, save blank, etc.). Makes more sense for a society filled with idle rich/dirt poor.
Ok, now that all of my whining is over with, I'lll whine about something different. This whole situation is ridiculus. If everything was automated, do you have any idea how large of a demand for non-automated services there would be? We're talking huge. If McDonald's, Burger King, etc. all went to automation, This would spark a whole new market for non-automated fast food. Ad:
"Real food. Real people. Eat at Friendly Burger."
Even if it costs more to eat at Friendly Burger (hope that's not a real name), the price would be justified because of the human interaction. Belive it or not, some people even go places just to have their order taken and chat with the person behind the counter. They're called "regulars." The reason why full automation in service-oriented tasks would never last is simple:
People like people better than machines. No one wants to be served drinks by a half-naked android. No one wants to be sold clothing by a tin can with no opinion of what's fashionable. No one wants to explain to a robot why they're pissed off about their soup being cold. What about security gaurds? What's to stop shoplifters? The camera? Ha! Shoplifters don't have images on file, you need to catch them red-handed. Give the robots guns? Lol. How hard would it be to get the tech specs on your waiter? How hard would it be to screw it up? Every store would at least need some type of human supervision because not every kid in NYC/LA/etc. has their prints on file, and no one wants to give robots the authority to detain anyone.
Automation will never eliminate anything, not even redundancy. Just change what's considered redundant. Just change everything.
4) Even if inflation is bad, how is seizing some of the people's holdings by printing money and thus causing inflation, worse than seizing some of the people's holdings by grabbing it in the form of taxes before they even see it?
.5, if it printed $1 for every hunderd, n is .01, so what if n = .05? How much would a Coke be in 50 years?
If people did not keep inflation down, it would eventually cost less to wipe your ass with cash than it would to buy toilet paper. It would cost $100 to print 80 $1 bills. Bill Gates would be worth (NARN) 9.9 tetra-giga-foobar-gizillian (almost half the price of peice of cheesecake). Seriously though, it dosn't take a genious to realize why massive inflation is not a good thing. I, for one, don't want 1 yen to equal 5.3 dollars in 12.7 years.
Because printing money is taking money without ever seeing it, and allows the gov., rather than you, determine how much to take and when to take it. Imagine this: America goes to war. The very next day, you need $500 to get a happy meal. Why? Because last night the goverment printed off enough money to fund the war, and 'decided' for you how much everything you own is worth in comparison to what it thinks the war is worth.
Another example: let's say the inflation induced by the gov printing $ causes the value of the dollar to drop 100n% per year. In x years, your dollar would be worth 100((1-n)^x) percent of its original value. So what is n? If the government printed $1 for itself for each in circulation, n is
The point is, there are lots of places to put ads on publicly-owned infrastructure and those ads would generate billions of dollars in revenue. If all that revenue adds up to $100 billion per year flowing into the central account, then each citizen of the United States gets a check for about $350 per year. Hey, it worked for NetZero, why not America? I can see it now: "Money was meant to be free!"
Anyone with a cd up for checking it out? I'm curious about everything else they might have stuck on it too...
Beat him up, take his clothing...
Besides, witness what happened with other titles that limited saving. Outcry from the buyers, and usually saving anywhere is added in the first patch. This is exactly what killed gaming. This is why major games lack creativity and look like they were designed in Hollywood. Deviate slightly from the 'marketable' algo and your sales drop. I miss the inventiveness aspect of gaming... Remember when you used to be able to go to the $9.99 section of a software store and actually be able to purchase high-quality multi-platform games that didn't all look like a variation of Quake || Myst || Warcraft || Diablo? Sigh...
How about this: Make it beneficial to NOT save. Resident Evil and Chromium both have the right idea: In RE, each save used up an item (an otherwise useless Ink Ribbon), which in turn used up an inventory slot. In Chromium, If you bypass a proctective sheild, you get another life. I like a combitation of theese ideas. Perhaps saving the game should require the sacrifice of a particularly powerful item (that may just save your life). This way you are left with two choices: Try to advance with the benifit of the item, or lose the item as an 'insurance fee,' with the benefit of being able to re-play that part.