How can the person in charge of printing money be counterfeiting money when they are authorized to print more? Though most of the easing isn't in printed money anyway, right?
It steals nothing. My $100 in the bank is worth $105 after the fed increases the money supply 5%. My house goes from $200,000 to 210,000, again, matching the inflation. Nothing is lost. The only thing "lost" is from people who keep cash under the mattress.
Wy can't you? The first 6 numbers are based on location, and the last 4 have a temporal component. If you know where someone lives, and when they moved here, you could calculate a range of numbers that would be likely. Much like SSN can ba "calculated" given enough information and partials of the number.
Your contributions to this discussion have been an overall negative.
Ad hominem. Proof you know you've lost.
Two of your three posts have started out with unfounded personal attacks on me.
Yet this one starts the same. Though you'll find yours "founded" and mine "unfounded". Yes, I get it. Your opinion is fact to you,and my opinion is unfounded. You've said nothing to support that, yet act like it's true.
I'm arguing only for keeping options on the table that haven't been conclusively ruled out.
And I'm arguing for a consistent lexicon so the discussions can get past semantics. You spend more time arguing with people about how they say something, you don't listen to what they say. Yet, you accuse others of the same thing. Just because I didn't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't hear or understand you. I hear. I understand. I disagree.
By the dictionary definition of atheism and the one you used earlier, I am an atheist. However, the lack of rational thought, common courtesy, and respect for others that you have displayed in this thread is unfortunately too common among self-professed atheists, which makes me hesitant to give myself that title. I have no desire to be associated with anyone like what you've displayed in this thread.
THat makes you a liar. That's not a personal attack. That's simply a fact. If you are an atheist, but refuse to use the label you know to be most accurate because you don't like some emotional baggage with it, then you are a liar. The only non-lie is to call yourself an atheist. That leve of lie/hypocricy is what I was pointing out. You admit to it, yet call it "unfounded" when I point it out.
Barring a sudden and dramatic shift in your posts, I will not be wasting any further effort responding to your ill-considered personal attacks
They were well-considered personal attacks, you hypocritical liar.
I guess you assume everyone in Texas leads a cult too? I'll report some news... last time I was in Texas, I'm pretty sure I saw a couple of Asian-decent people there... based on that evidence, I guess you think everyone there is Asian too, right?
Funny you mention that. My path to college took me through Waco, and I passed the Koresh compound no less than 10 times while it was under seige (And countless times before it was interesting).
No, I lived there for 30 years, and have friends there I speak with on a regular basis. Nobody has mentioned any drastic changes, Why do you think that something has changed? The number of exceptional acts that make it in the news doesn't seem to have changed since I moved away.
For instance, I'm sure you think in Alabama (where I live) everyone is a racist and we're all trying to bring back slavery. But I know very few people that would qualify as "racist" at any level, and those people are mostly senior citizens who are completely fine with African-Americans but grew up used to using terms we don't use today.
Well shit. Come to texas. I know someone in his 30s who's a construciton foreman. "I'll hire a Nigger. Sure, I'll not go out fro drinks with him later, but those Niggers work hard and know their place. But Mexicans, they are lazy, I wouldn't hire one." Or when I was in college there and I sat next to the football center in a class. A girl asked him about his football experiences, and he talked about it. She asked "do they make you room with a black person?" He laughed a little and said "No, they'd never make one of US room with one of THEM." My jaw dropped, I was a freshman straight from an integrated school in the big city, I didn't "get" racism at the time. He saw my shock and said "It's not like we're racist - we let them play on the team." Yes, there are segregated athletic dorms. Still, in Texas. Segregation is alive and well. Yet you assert there is no racism in the US south. I was there. I lived it. You need to get out more.
If you seriously think that most of the US is gay-hating,
All I need for proof is to look at the polls after a vote on gay marriage.
Thanks, but you can take your racist, hating, evil, violent culture and defend it all you want. I have seen it all. 40 years in the US, then moving out to raise my own family in a more tolerant palce (anywhere else in the world). Yes, the US, fresh of DOMA, has complained about the anti-gay-marriage laws in Africa, or the legality of gays in Russia, while it's still illegal in some states in the US.
My opinion is wrong because you don't like it. It doesn't work that way. Prove me wrong. Show me the press release where Texas A&M requires all white sports players have a Black roomate, where available. Show me that one thing, and I'll believe you that things have changed. If you can't, then I'll assume everything else you say is as truthful as you've asserted so far. "There is no racism in Alabama" Ha Ha Ha. It'd be funny as satire. But sad little lies when stated seriously.
Palin had nothing to do with it. It was all Don Young and Ted Stevens (Rep and Senator for Alaska, both Republican). And the problem was that the two bridges to nowhere were shot down, when one of them was possibly a good idea.
Taxes are to pretend that the money could be paid back. If there were no taxes, then the government could *never* pay everything off. If that happened, then people would would stop lending money to the government. At that point, the government would lose the ability to control inflation and other parts of the economy. All money policy (including taxes) is about controlling the economy.
And no, the government couldn't operate off printed money, as at the rate it spends, the inflation would kill the economy.
So yes, in theory we could operate taxless, but in practice, no.
Yup, the only two ways to get the US shoes are to steal them from the Chinese factory, or re-import them from the US after they were sold at full-retail in the US.
I just did a search on a couple things and I didn't see any price penalty on Prime items. I've never had Prime, as it doesn't work for Alaska, but I haven't seen the problem you complain about. Could you point out some examples?
The exact same argument could be made for coverage of prenatal care.
Everyone was born. Everyone received prenatal care. Most people have children.
Also, prevention has been shown to cut other costs. Better prenatal care may result in lower delivery costs, or costs of other complications.
You can get married even if the state doesn't recognize it.
Sure, and you can change your name, even if the state doesn't recognize it. You just can't change your name on your driver's license, bank accounts, work records, tax returns, or just about anywhere else. Sometimes doing something without official recognition is pretty pointless.
You can move, which is what my brother-in-law did before getting married to his partner.
So, tell me. When you looked and previously worded your response as "I couldn't find infertility coverage on the private market in my state." So, where did you find it? And why didn't you move to use it, if that's so trivial? Seems you don't even take your own advice.
Exactly. It sucks. I've spent a lot of money. I could move to another state and have infertility covered by law. But I haven't, and I'm not willing to make the move.
Ah, so the issue is that you are unwilling to do what it takes, you know the cost, and make the choice to be in an infertility intolerant place, then come here and complain about how everything's unfair. I moved out of the US. I happen to live in a place with gay marriage and fully funded socialized medicine IVF treatment. Oh, and I make more and pay less taxes than when I was in the US. The US is one of the worst industrialized nations to live. Oh, and if you don't want to wait on the waiting list for free IVF treatment, you can spend about $5000 per cycle and try privately. I have no idea how that compares to the US. And no, most private insurance doesn't cover it here, either. But medical loans are about the cheapest unsecured loans you can get, but still very expensive by US standards.
Tell me, which areas in the US are "risk to health and life"? Please, that was my whole point... the hard conservatives in the United States might disagree with you (and even hate groups like Westboro only resort to calling names), but there are other places in this world that will kill or torture gay people.
Houston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... It was in the '90s, and I remember it, as I lived near Houston at the time. Though it wasn't even the first one that popped in my mind, a more recent case that involved a dragging behind a truck, but I didn't find that in a quick search.
Gay people fear for their lives. Often the hate crime is a single punch, or a glass bottle thrown from a passing car. For safety's sake, don't be a male on the streets in the gay part of Dallas when the straight bars are closing. You are at risk of death by botttle-to-the-head just for being in the wrong area. I've seen it. My father lived near there (cheap rents in areas where the police "allow" assault on males, because they are presumed to be gay). I left Texas in 2001, so it's been a while, but 10 years ago, it was common, and mostly condoned.
Ludditism. Really, that's all. The first time a "driverless" vehicle kills someone, everyone will fight over who gets the blame. Everyone will be sued for billions. Even if it's something that has happened before, like a car trying to beat the train, missing and hitting the train.
There is no free rider problem. That billionaires are whining about some Chinese shop making $0.10 off a shirt that didn't give the NFL billionaires 90% profit isn't a "problem". Are you asserting that the counterfeit merchandise manufactured in China is shipped by the NFL, then stolen in the USA for sale?
You are defending the billionaire's loss, when we don't see one in the first place.
The taxes in the USA are regressive. As a top 10% wage earner, I paid about 10% in federal income tax, less than 20% total tax (including all federal, state, and local taxes). And the wealthy (the 1% people talk about) often pay much less than that, some even getting tax rebates. And most of the value of taxes goes to the rich.
My issue is with those who want their belief in no god to be rational and scientific while simultaneously thinking those who believe in a god are irrational lunatics.
You believe, without proof, that you are correct. Yet refuse to believe those who tell you what they mean. I didn't run out of constructive thoughts, I just don't have much patience for hypocritical pricks.
Do you believe that Occam's razor is logical? Then why couldn't something like that be used to logically justify a rational non-belief?
You've made up your mind, and obviously don't consider anything that doesn't support your pre-determined answer. Anything you don't like is a belief. Belief in science isn't belief. It's "belief" like I believe I'm sitting in a chair.
The other theory I heard is that infant mortality was so high, that many deaths were probably not fully understood. You just have another. 1% of the population is allergic, but if 99% of those die as an infant for reasons not fully understood (peanut allergy), then there will be tiny numbers in the adult population. That could be sufficient to explain much of the difference. That and the prevalence of nut protein in everything as a filler and such. But it doesn't need to be an actual increase in the percent of people with allergies to explain the increase in the number of people with allergies.
So no president could be elected if the top 3 electoral winners were Bush Jr, Obama, and Mickey Mouse. Whoever the senate votes in for VP will be the president, then select their own VP. Maybe we can get that to happen. At least then, we might finally get rid of the Electoral College, one of the worst ideas by the founding fathers (though not done now as originally written, as it was even worse before).
About 10 years ago was right. And a foetus can't have an allergic reaction to peanuts, can it? It has no immune system. The mother could have a reaction to something, but the foetus couldn't, right? At school now (he's 7), there's a "no sharing" policy, but peanuts are allowed at school. He takes peanut butter sandwiches all the time, and sometimes snack-packs of peanuts, or nut mix containing actual peanuts. I remember the peanut scare, but it was close enough to (and based on the same "science" of panicked and angry parents, not science) the Autism scare, that it was completely ignored by us, best we could ignore it.
How does that work? My son's first solid food was peanut butter. Nobody ever mentioned there was an age "too young" to expose them to it, and he still loves it to this day. Now that they've solved peanuts, maybe they can solve gluten.
If I ask "Does a supernatural god exist?" and you say "No, I know such an entity does not exist", you have no means to determine the truth of your statement. You do not know this in the same way you know your cup was underfilled. Yet, you are willing to stake out the same position. I don't care what words you use, but that you apparently believe these two examples are similar.
Ah, so that moves your error. Rather than one of semantics, yours is one of assholeness. You are ignoring all meaning behind using the passive voice, because your personal view is that it's cowardly, and has no semantical meaning. It is a "softer" way of wording the same thing. Whether because of the belief is "weaker" or the confrontation is to be avoided may depend on the person speaking, but you ignore the words used to assert the meaning, or interrogate the speaker until the meaning is determined to your narrow demands.
Sometimes the answer is simply, "I don't believe there is a god." I don't believe there is a pink unicorn downstairs, but I have no proof to that effect.
That you have the same quality knowledge/belief/whatever about these two situations. Yet that is not true.
You assert so, but how to *you* know? You believe that someone can't "know". But what proof do you have that they can't know?
As for the "proof" others have. They may have a lower or different standard of proof. Perhaps they are using logical constructs you don't believe in or agree with. They may accept it as logical proof without "belief", you you don't. You claim to know how the speaker thinks better than the speaker themselves. That seems like the basis for error, not something a logical person could deduce.
Just because the seizure is for a "good reason" does not mean the police shouldn't be paying market rates to deny you use. If they don't supply you with a marked cruiser to drive around for a year, they should buy the car from you for such a seizure. Just because they don't do things right in one way, isn't a good excuse for them to do things wrong in another.
Slashdot Mirror
How can the person in charge of printing money be counterfeiting money when they are authorized to print more? Though most of the easing isn't in printed money anyway, right?
It steals nothing. My $100 in the bank is worth $105 after the fed increases the money supply 5%. My house goes from $200,000 to 210,000, again, matching the inflation. Nothing is lost. The only thing "lost" is from people who keep cash under the mattress.
Wy can't you? The first 6 numbers are based on location, and the last 4 have a temporal component. If you know where someone lives, and when they moved here, you could calculate a range of numbers that would be likely. Much like SSN can ba "calculated" given enough information and partials of the number.
Your contributions to this discussion have been an overall negative.
Ad hominem. Proof you know you've lost.
Two of your three posts have started out with unfounded personal attacks on me.
Yet this one starts the same. Though you'll find yours "founded" and mine "unfounded". Yes, I get it. Your opinion is fact to you,and my opinion is unfounded. You've said nothing to support that, yet act like it's true.
I'm arguing only for keeping options on the table that haven't been conclusively ruled out.
And I'm arguing for a consistent lexicon so the discussions can get past semantics. You spend more time arguing with people about how they say something, you don't listen to what they say. Yet, you accuse others of the same thing. Just because I didn't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't hear or understand you. I hear. I understand. I disagree.
By the dictionary definition of atheism and the one you used earlier, I am an atheist. However, the lack of rational thought, common courtesy, and respect for others that you have displayed in this thread is unfortunately too common among self-professed atheists, which makes me hesitant to give myself that title. I have no desire to be associated with anyone like what you've displayed in this thread.
THat makes you a liar. That's not a personal attack. That's simply a fact. If you are an atheist, but refuse to use the label you know to be most accurate because you don't like some emotional baggage with it, then you are a liar. The only non-lie is to call yourself an atheist. That leve of lie/hypocricy is what I was pointing out. You admit to it, yet call it "unfounded" when I point it out.
Barring a sudden and dramatic shift in your posts, I will not be wasting any further effort responding to your ill-considered personal attacks
They were well-considered personal attacks, you hypocritical liar.
I guess you assume everyone in Texas leads a cult too? I'll report some news... last time I was in Texas, I'm pretty sure I saw a couple of Asian-decent people there... based on that evidence, I guess you think everyone there is Asian too, right?
Funny you mention that. My path to college took me through Waco, and I passed the Koresh compound no less than 10 times while it was under seige (And countless times before it was interesting).
No, I lived there for 30 years, and have friends there I speak with on a regular basis. Nobody has mentioned any drastic changes, Why do you think that something has changed? The number of exceptional acts that make it in the news doesn't seem to have changed since I moved away.
For instance, I'm sure you think in Alabama (where I live) everyone is a racist and we're all trying to bring back slavery. But I know very few people that would qualify as "racist" at any level, and those people are mostly senior citizens who are completely fine with African-Americans but grew up used to using terms we don't use today.
Well shit. Come to texas. I know someone in his 30s who's a construciton foreman. "I'll hire a Nigger. Sure, I'll not go out fro drinks with him later, but those Niggers work hard and know their place. But Mexicans, they are lazy, I wouldn't hire one." Or when I was in college there and I sat next to the football center in a class. A girl asked him about his football experiences, and he talked about it. She asked "do they make you room with a black person?" He laughed a little and said "No, they'd never make one of US room with one of THEM." My jaw dropped, I was a freshman straight from an integrated school in the big city, I didn't "get" racism at the time. He saw my shock and said "It's not like we're racist - we let them play on the team." Yes, there are segregated athletic dorms. Still, in Texas. Segregation is alive and well. Yet you assert there is no racism in the US south. I was there. I lived it. You need to get out more.
If you seriously think that most of the US is gay-hating,
All I need for proof is to look at the polls after a vote on gay marriage.
Thanks, but you can take your racist, hating, evil, violent culture and defend it all you want. I have seen it all. 40 years in the US, then moving out to raise my own family in a more tolerant palce (anywhere else in the world). Yes, the US, fresh of DOMA, has complained about the anti-gay-marriage laws in Africa, or the legality of gays in Russia, while it's still illegal in some states in the US.
My opinion is wrong because you don't like it. It doesn't work that way. Prove me wrong. Show me the press release where Texas A&M requires all white sports players have a Black roomate, where available. Show me that one thing, and I'll believe you that things have changed. If you can't, then I'll assume everything else you say is as truthful as you've asserted so far. "There is no racism in Alabama" Ha Ha Ha. It'd be funny as satire. But sad little lies when stated seriously.
Palin had nothing to do with it. It was all Don Young and Ted Stevens (Rep and Senator for Alaska, both Republican). And the problem was that the two bridges to nowhere were shot down, when one of them was possibly a good idea.
Taxes are to pretend that the money could be paid back. If there were no taxes, then the government could *never* pay everything off. If that happened, then people would would stop lending money to the government. At that point, the government would lose the ability to control inflation and other parts of the economy. All money policy (including taxes) is about controlling the economy.
And no, the government couldn't operate off printed money, as at the rate it spends, the inflation would kill the economy.
So yes, in theory we could operate taxless, but in practice, no.
So, who's writing the program to automate this for all YouTube videos?
Yup, the only two ways to get the US shoes are to steal them from the Chinese factory, or re-import them from the US after they were sold at full-retail in the US.
I just did a search on a couple things and I didn't see any price penalty on Prime items. I've never had Prime, as it doesn't work for Alaska, but I haven't seen the problem you complain about. Could you point out some examples?
The exact same argument could be made for coverage of prenatal care.
Everyone was born. Everyone received prenatal care. Most people have children.
Also, prevention has been shown to cut other costs. Better prenatal care may result in lower delivery costs, or costs of other complications.
You can get married even if the state doesn't recognize it.
Sure, and you can change your name, even if the state doesn't recognize it. You just can't change your name on your driver's license, bank accounts, work records, tax returns, or just about anywhere else. Sometimes doing something without official recognition is pretty pointless.
You can move, which is what my brother-in-law did before getting married to his partner.
So, tell me. When you looked and previously worded your response as "I couldn't find infertility coverage on the private market in my state." So, where did you find it? And why didn't you move to use it, if that's so trivial? Seems you don't even take your own advice.
Exactly. It sucks. I've spent a lot of money. I could move to another state and have infertility covered by law. But I haven't, and I'm not willing to make the move.
Ah, so the issue is that you are unwilling to do what it takes, you know the cost, and make the choice to be in an infertility intolerant place, then come here and complain about how everything's unfair. I moved out of the US. I happen to live in a place with gay marriage and fully funded socialized medicine IVF treatment. Oh, and I make more and pay less taxes than when I was in the US. The US is one of the worst industrialized nations to live. Oh, and if you don't want to wait on the waiting list for free IVF treatment, you can spend about $5000 per cycle and try privately. I have no idea how that compares to the US. And no, most private insurance doesn't cover it here, either. But medical loans are about the cheapest unsecured loans you can get, but still very expensive by US standards.
Tell me, which areas in the US are "risk to health and life"? Please, that was my whole point... the hard conservatives in the United States might disagree with you (and even hate groups like Westboro only resort to calling names), but there are other places in this world that will kill or torture gay people.
Houston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... It was in the '90s, and I remember it, as I lived near Houston at the time. Though it wasn't even the first one that popped in my mind, a more recent case that involved a dragging behind a truck, but I didn't find that in a quick search.
Gay people fear for their lives. Often the hate crime is a single punch, or a glass bottle thrown from a passing car. For safety's sake, don't be a male on the streets in the gay part of Dallas when the straight bars are closing. You are at risk of death by botttle-to-the-head just for being in the wrong area. I've seen it. My father lived near there (cheap rents in areas where the police "allow" assault on males, because they are presumed to be gay). I left Texas in 2001, so it's been a while, but 10 years ago, it was common, and mostly condoned.
Ludditism. Really, that's all. The first time a "driverless" vehicle kills someone, everyone will fight over who gets the blame. Everyone will be sued for billions. Even if it's something that has happened before, like a car trying to beat the train, missing and hitting the train.
Mind telling me exactly what the fuck they should be focused on this month, if their very job is to stop illegal trafficking of all kinds?
Unsafe foods, and people smuggled in containers like cargo. Why should the government be the private security for a billionaires club?
Every time they find a single joint. Have you not seen the values they place on drugs? Always grossly inflated.
There is no free rider problem. That billionaires are whining about some Chinese shop making $0.10 off a shirt that didn't give the NFL billionaires 90% profit isn't a "problem". Are you asserting that the counterfeit merchandise manufactured in China is shipped by the NFL, then stolen in the USA for sale?
You are defending the billionaire's loss, when we don't see one in the first place.
The taxes in the USA are regressive. As a top 10% wage earner, I paid about 10% in federal income tax, less than 20% total tax (including all federal, state, and local taxes). And the wealthy (the 1% people talk about) often pay much less than that, some even getting tax rebates. And most of the value of taxes goes to the rich.
The Republican Party is also a non-profit, as is the Democratic Party.
Being a non-profit doesn't make one charitable.
My issue is with those who want their belief in no god to be rational and scientific while simultaneously thinking those who believe in a god are irrational lunatics.
You believe, without proof, that you are correct. Yet refuse to believe those who tell you what they mean. I didn't run out of constructive thoughts, I just don't have much patience for hypocritical pricks.
Do you believe that Occam's razor is logical? Then why couldn't something like that be used to logically justify a rational non-belief?
You've made up your mind, and obviously don't consider anything that doesn't support your pre-determined answer. Anything you don't like is a belief. Belief in science isn't belief. It's "belief" like I believe I'm sitting in a chair.
The other theory I heard is that infant mortality was so high, that many deaths were probably not fully understood. You just have another. 1% of the population is allergic, but if 99% of those die as an infant for reasons not fully understood (peanut allergy), then there will be tiny numbers in the adult population. That could be sufficient to explain much of the difference. That and the prevalence of nut protein in everything as a filler and such. But it doesn't need to be an actual increase in the percent of people with allergies to explain the increase in the number of people with allergies.
So no president could be elected if the top 3 electoral winners were Bush Jr, Obama, and Mickey Mouse. Whoever the senate votes in for VP will be the president, then select their own VP. Maybe we can get that to happen. At least then, we might finally get rid of the Electoral College, one of the worst ideas by the founding fathers (though not done now as originally written, as it was even worse before).
About 10 years ago was right. And a foetus can't have an allergic reaction to peanuts, can it? It has no immune system. The mother could have a reaction to something, but the foetus couldn't, right? At school now (he's 7), there's a "no sharing" policy, but peanuts are allowed at school. He takes peanut butter sandwiches all the time, and sometimes snack-packs of peanuts, or nut mix containing actual peanuts. I remember the peanut scare, but it was close enough to (and based on the same "science" of panicked and angry parents, not science) the Autism scare, that it was completely ignored by us, best we could ignore it.
How does that work? My son's first solid food was peanut butter. Nobody ever mentioned there was an age "too young" to expose them to it, and he still loves it to this day. Now that they've solved peanuts, maybe they can solve gluten.
If I ask "Does a supernatural god exist?" and you say "No, I know such an entity does not exist", you have no means to determine the truth of your statement. You do not know this in the same way you know your cup was underfilled. Yet, you are willing to stake out the same position. I don't care what words you use, but that you apparently believe these two examples are similar.
Ah, so that moves your error. Rather than one of semantics, yours is one of assholeness. You are ignoring all meaning behind using the passive voice, because your personal view is that it's cowardly, and has no semantical meaning. It is a "softer" way of wording the same thing. Whether because of the belief is "weaker" or the confrontation is to be avoided may depend on the person speaking, but you ignore the words used to assert the meaning, or interrogate the speaker until the meaning is determined to your narrow demands.
Sometimes the answer is simply, "I don't believe there is a god." I don't believe there is a pink unicorn downstairs, but I have no proof to that effect.
That you have the same quality knowledge/belief/whatever about these two situations. Yet that is not true.
You assert so, but how to *you* know? You believe that someone can't "know". But what proof do you have that they can't know?
As for the "proof" others have. They may have a lower or different standard of proof. Perhaps they are using logical constructs you don't believe in or agree with. They may accept it as logical proof without "belief", you you don't. You claim to know how the speaker thinks better than the speaker themselves. That seems like the basis for error, not something a logical person could deduce.
No, it presumes you already know how to play before you start. There's a difference.
Just because the seizure is for a "good reason" does not mean the police shouldn't be paying market rates to deny you use. If they don't supply you with a marked cruiser to drive around for a year, they should buy the car from you for such a seizure. Just because they don't do things right in one way, isn't a good excuse for them to do things wrong in another.