Don't let people yell at you. That's the case where you should get another job, or even career.
But you can't get another job because there isn't any. And you can't switch careers because then you're at an even worse position since you now have zero relevant experience and possibly have to retrain, which costs you and drives you into bankruptcy that much sooner. So you either let people yell at you, work unpaid overtime and still need food stamps, and generally take any abuse thrown your way, or you'll go bankrupt and get punished endlessly the "personal responsibility" crowd.
That's what wage slavery is, and its chains are perhaps even more effective than those made of iron.
Perhaps those fresh graduates shouldn't have spent $100K on a low-paying career path. Poor life choices are ones own fault.
Well, in a free-market situation, every career path is a low-paying one, since money in your pocket is an inefficiency (from the market's point of view) which competition will remove. Thus getting an education is always a poor life choice there, having an expected utility that tends towards zero. And so does every other choice; that's what efficient market means.
Right - it's much more like Mussolini-style fascism, where the Corporations and Government form "partnerships", often with certain corporations given monopoly or defacto monopoly control in some markets.
But Capitalism has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty.
Capitalism made people so miserable it led to communist revolutions. The fear of more of them forced the capitalists to make some concessions to their "human resources". Then communism fell, after which the capitalists have been repealing those concessions. And so the history is repeating itself with social unrest on the rise again.
If a CEO gets the owner one million dollars per day, the owner can afford to pay that CEO $999,999 per day and still pocket $1 a day. It's not your business. The owner can decide if the CEO is worth it. The CEO can decide if the pay is worth it.
And the rest of the people can decide if it's in their best interests to support such as system or tear it down. The latter has happened before. Gartner seems to think it'll happen again and soon. You, apparently, think the current state of affairs is an unchangeable aspect of reality itself rather than a mere social compact.
Employees are free to sell their labor elsewhere. They have the right to order their affairs and sell their time as they see fit, finding the most advantageous deal they can.
And when the most advantegeous deal to the majority of people is to take to the streets and take a better one from the cold, dead hands of the CEO and the owner, what do you think will happen?
The laws of thermodynamics are obviously wrong. Wrong in the same way that Newtonian physics is wrong. Meaning that it is close enough for anything I will ever get my hands on, but that it clearly does not explain everything that is happening, and it is clearly violated at some point.
Please give an example of such violation? Because I'm afraid I can't see this obvious flaw you posit.
Want to live by the "don't snitch rule" in your part of society, then fuck you, the police should just let your neighborhood rot.
It's not the "don't snitch" -rule, it's the "everything you say can be used against you" -rule. So if you say anything, no matter the circumstances, you risk yourself - you never know if you'll make a convenient scapegoat for some cop or attorney. So does risking harm to the society rather than harm to yourself make you a "piece of shit"? Perhaps. But it might be more effective to analyze the reasons why things have deteriorated to this point and work to fix them rather than judge people who aren't willing to take one for the team.
And I do understand not being cooperative if police are just power tripping and/or going on fishing expeditions.
And how do you know they aren't on a fishing expedition when they talk to you? Just looking for some excuse to cast suspicion on you so the attorney can then blackmail you with a plea bargain, since they need to convict someone to please the tough on crime -crowd? Do you have psychic powers than can detect malicious intent? Can you infuse your fellow citizens with them? Because if you don't, you're taking a terrible risk talking to cops, and if you can't, you're demanding others take this risk. And that's not very just.
This is one of the ironies of a police state: it actually makes police work harder, since they're everyone's enemy.
I hope they resolve it soon, because playing chicken with a US default isn't something that anyone wants to see.
Which rises a question: will the US credit rating be downgraded again? Because at this point, I think a default is just a matter of time - if it doesn't happen this time, there's always the next, and the next, and...
I'm sure the polls are different when their asked to respond to the side effects of the ACA.
The one side effect Americans can't stand is someone getting something better than they deserve. Thus they have the government they deserve and not a tiniest bit better.
It is when it is visible because of the lack of ice that some of the global warming deniers will wake up. Maybe.
Not a chance. The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it. People who have made fools of themselves by publicly speaking of international climate science conspiracies have a lot of incentive to keep believing in them. And of course there's still whatever reason - usually economic - that led them to start such games in the first place.
The more evidence is found, the more ridiculous assumptions are required to explain it away, and the more desperate the defence will be. It's the same with all communities of true believers. Unfortunately, this issue happens to have some actual impact on the world, so they can't be simply left alone in their fantasies.
Or option c: I have had friends who got involved in the wrong people, and helped to get them out of it, with the help of law enforcement and a lot of time at a law library where, reviewing case after case of drug busts of all varieties searching for a technicality, I may have inadvertently learned a few things as well the good old fashioned way: With primary research.
Or option d: You made shit up earlier, and are now making up more shit to avoid admitting that. And the rest of your posts don't really suggest you have the capability of learning law on the fly. And even if you did, law enforcement isn't exactly famous for helping people get out of drug-related charges, or helping them research technicalities.
Friend Occam, what do you say?
I could not have stated your failure any more succinctly.
Losing to a non-native speaker of your language in eloquence of expression is not exactly something to brag about, now is it?
Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.
It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts and use those an excuse to kidnap and hold people indefinitely, yes. But it doesn't solve the problem: how do you know you're not next? Mere innocence won't protect you, since you'll never get to plead your case. So how will you keep the beast you've unleashed from turning on you?
But, for the sake of the record: The German war prisoners in WW2 were kept without trial for two reasons: 1) they weren't actually guilty of anything besides having lived in a country with conscription and a Nazi regime when said regime decided to go to war, and 2) there were hundreds of thousands of them, so it was not possible to arrange hearings for them all. Also, WW2 had a clearly defined and foreseeable end, after which they were let go - except those held by the Russians, who stayed in the camps for a long, long time. Stalin agrees with you in this too, comrade.
In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.
In that case, it is also legal and correct to hold you indefinitely, should someone with a high enough position decide so. Perhaps you think you'll get lucky, or perhaps you think you'll be rewarded for licking their jackboots from early on. But I wouldn't count on that. A lot of Stalin's fanclub ended up in the gulags, after all.
If it's so 'obvious' that that is rape, as many people believe anyway, then an obvious result should follow.
And that's the problem right there - "many people" believe so. Do you want the conviction depend on whether the jury happens to believe something is morally wrong, or do you want it to depend on whether the law says it's illegal?
This is not hard to understand; prove that rape took place, and you have your conviction.
And that requires you to define exactly what "rape" means. Otherwise, you'll get two people who did the exact same thing with airtight evidence, yet one walks and the other goes to prison because two juries differ not on whether the accused is guilty but on whether what they're accused of is a crime.
I'm not asking for any such thing, and we have enough lynch mobs as it is.
"Asking for", as in "supporting a course of action that will certainly result in them becoming more prevalent".
Illogical pieces of garbage who supposedly want to 'protect' the children constantly try to get politicians to enact laws that infringe upon everyone's freedoms and the mob mentality has never been stronger, so your precious lynch mobs already exist.
And for all that, children still need to be protected. Either the law does so or their parents will, the latter leading to extrajudicial punishment of suspected and actual child molesters by lynch mobs.
Also, you're doing the exact same thing here that allows "think of the children" to be used as an excuse for anything: thinking with your gut instead of your head. No matter how much you hate "illogical pieces of garbage" the expected results of the actions you suggest - removing the concept of age of consent from the law, or leaving it undefined - do not change, and are quite negative.
I'm talking about the age of consent.
Which needs to be defined, for the reasons mentioned above.
Now, the President and both Houses do have some shared responsibility, as they did sign off on it, but that is in the same way that Linus Torvalds is responsible for errors in (say) Linux wireless card device drivers. Ultimately he signs off on the upgrade, but if you want to fix a problem in such low-level code you go to the guy who actually wrote the code in question.
So, how many updates has Linus signed off that, say, improved the scheduler and simultaneously made an unrelated alteration to wireless card drivers?
Now it is only a question of time till protesters start claiming he is innocent and should be released.
Well, if is outside the judicial system, he can't be given a fair trial, which means he can't be proven to be guilty, which means he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. And that, of course, means he should be released.
Alternatively, we could accept that he's guilty if someone powerful says so, but that has an obvious downside: how do you know you're not next?
Oh well. The US gave up due process with the War on Drugs, made it official with the opening of Gitmo, and has now made it the standard procedure. I guess Stalin won the Cold War afterall.
With all that said, yes it does look like an animal with no head or tail is running ass-first.
And now I'm imagining a horde of Goatse-inspired warbots charging the enemy ass first, making a drawn-out farting sound and attempting to entrap them in that gaping maw.
Yeah... because we've never had problems with adding a crapton of floating point and extra decimal places to math with computers before.
Bitcoin doesn't use floating point, it uses fixed point. From the computer's point of view it's all integer math (and the only operations are addition and substraction), which is completely precise, and only gets presented as a floating point number to the user for the sake of convenience. This wouldn't change should the current atomic unit (Satoshi) was replace by, say, nanosatoshis. And indeed, the Qt client allows you to change the unit of display.
Also, please note that traditional currencies do this kind of readjustments occasionally too, to keep the typical amounts in a range convenient to express without needing to use scientific notation. Altough it would had been better if the Bitcoin protocol would had been designed to do so automatically without needing interference - for example, if x% of transactions in the past n blocks are less or greater than some treshold, change the fixed point for the next one - just like difficulty is auto-adjusted.
Some of the greatest financial scams of our time were based on rounding and floating point errors.
Such as?
The idea that the currency can be "infinitely divisible" is not a selling point, it's a structural weakness.
Even if your earlier statement about rounding errors was correct, a more divisible currency would actually make them less severe than one that's limited to two decimal places. A rounding error of 1/100,000,000th gives a lot less room to profit from scamming than 1/100th, after all.
But the US has many enemies and I don't think it's easy to predict what will happen if they stop monitoring.
Whereas it's easy to predict what will happens if they keep making such moral compromises in the name of short-term gain: the number of enemies will grow.
I would rather lines like that not exist at all, and that prosecutors and police be forced to prove that actual rape took place.
So what will happen when some sicko has sex with a six-year old? Four year old? A toddler? Either the age is not a factor at all, in which case you're asking for lynch mobs to take justice in their own hands (and for good reason); or it is, in which case you need to define the cutoff line where it stops being a factor to ensure equality before law.
The very fact that you felt the need to add the qualifier to "actual rape" suggests that there might be disagreement about just what the word entails, and thus the law needs to define it precisely - and that means drawing lines.
Deflation is, in economics, generally considered A Very Bad Thing.
Some economists think so, yes. Some think the exact opposite. As usual, there's too many variables in economics to isolate the effects of either inflation or deflation, so everyone can rest assured their pet theories can never be proven wrong.
I believe that's why Bitcoin was designed to have an inflationary pressure built right in (the mining process should continually increase the pool, making every Bitcoin worth slightly less over time).
The mining process will only produce a finite number of Bitcoins (21,000,000), half of which have been produced. The mining reward is already only half of what it used to be, and half again, and again, and again, towards nothing.
And of course even a fixed-speed mining process would eventually cause deflation, because economic growth is exponential and will eventually overtake any linear process.
Or, if you trust your memory, you could use a deterministic wallet generated from a memorized seed, such as a long enough passphrase. That way, no backups are necessary, and it's pretty much impossible to even determine which adresses are yours.
Snark aside though... if this 'Walter White' guy is mass producing drugs for a TV show, the odds are very, very good that the producers have given a highly slanted perspective on how drugs are actually made and distributed, because the day to day is actually quite boring for the people involved... and they don't make as much money as you seem to think either.
And you know this how? You're either making shit up to appear smart, or a genuine idiot bragging about her actual extensive experience working for a drug cartel on a public web forum where your IP can be easily traced - on a story discussing a drug bust that ultimately resulted from the accused posting on a forum, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can't get another job because there isn't any. And you can't switch careers because then you're at an even worse position since you now have zero relevant experience and possibly have to retrain, which costs you and drives you into bankruptcy that much sooner. So you either let people yell at you, work unpaid overtime and still need food stamps, and generally take any abuse thrown your way, or you'll go bankrupt and get punished endlessly the "personal responsibility" crowd.
That's what wage slavery is, and its chains are perhaps even more effective than those made of iron.
Well, in a free-market situation, every career path is a low-paying one, since money in your pocket is an inefficiency (from the market's point of view) which competition will remove. Thus getting an education is always a poor life choice there, having an expected utility that tends towards zero. And so does every other choice; that's what efficient market means.
Isn't that how America usualyl operates?
Capitalism made people so miserable it led to communist revolutions. The fear of more of them forced the capitalists to make some concessions to their "human resources". Then communism fell, after which the capitalists have been repealing those concessions. And so the history is repeating itself with social unrest on the rise again.
And the rest of the people can decide if it's in their best interests to support such as system or tear it down. The latter has happened before. Gartner seems to think it'll happen again and soon. You, apparently, think the current state of affairs is an unchangeable aspect of reality itself rather than a mere social compact.
And when the most advantegeous deal to the majority of people is to take to the streets and take a better one from the cold, dead hands of the CEO and the owner, what do you think will happen?
Please give an example of such violation? Because I'm afraid I can't see this obvious flaw you posit.
So, it was a spectacular success?
Flexible materials in general tend to not scratch easily; what would scratch a harder material just pushes it out of the way.
It's not the "don't snitch" -rule, it's the "everything you say can be used against you" -rule. So if you say anything, no matter the circumstances, you risk yourself - you never know if you'll make a convenient scapegoat for some cop or attorney. So does risking harm to the society rather than harm to yourself make you a "piece of shit"? Perhaps. But it might be more effective to analyze the reasons why things have deteriorated to this point and work to fix them rather than judge people who aren't willing to take one for the team.
And how do you know they aren't on a fishing expedition when they talk to you? Just looking for some excuse to cast suspicion on you so the attorney can then blackmail you with a plea bargain, since they need to convict someone to please the tough on crime -crowd? Do you have psychic powers than can detect malicious intent? Can you infuse your fellow citizens with them? Because if you don't, you're taking a terrible risk talking to cops, and if you can't, you're demanding others take this risk. And that's not very just.
This is one of the ironies of a police state: it actually makes police work harder, since they're everyone's enemy.
Which rises a question: will the US credit rating be downgraded again? Because at this point, I think a default is just a matter of time - if it doesn't happen this time, there's always the next, and the next, and...
The one side effect Americans can't stand is someone getting something better than they deserve. Thus they have the government they deserve and not a tiniest bit better.
Not a chance. The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it. People who have made fools of themselves by publicly speaking of international climate science conspiracies have a lot of incentive to keep believing in them. And of course there's still whatever reason - usually economic - that led them to start such games in the first place.
The more evidence is found, the more ridiculous assumptions are required to explain it away, and the more desperate the defence will be. It's the same with all communities of true believers. Unfortunately, this issue happens to have some actual impact on the world, so they can't be simply left alone in their fantasies.
Or option d: You made shit up earlier, and are now making up more shit to avoid admitting that. And the rest of your posts don't really suggest you have the capability of learning law on the fly. And even if you did, law enforcement isn't exactly famous for helping people get out of drug-related charges, or helping them research technicalities.
Friend Occam, what do you say?
Losing to a non-native speaker of your language in eloquence of expression is not exactly something to brag about, now is it?
And this, here, summarizes perfectly why things keep going to Hell. Emphasis mine.
It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts and use those an excuse to kidnap and hold people indefinitely, yes. But it doesn't solve the problem: how do you know you're not next? Mere innocence won't protect you, since you'll never get to plead your case. So how will you keep the beast you've unleashed from turning on you?
But, for the sake of the record: The German war prisoners in WW2 were kept without trial for two reasons: 1) they weren't actually guilty of anything besides having lived in a country with conscription and a Nazi regime when said regime decided to go to war, and 2) there were hundreds of thousands of them, so it was not possible to arrange hearings for them all. Also, WW2 had a clearly defined and foreseeable end, after which they were let go - except those held by the Russians, who stayed in the camps for a long, long time. Stalin agrees with you in this too, comrade.
In that case, it is also legal and correct to hold you indefinitely, should someone with a high enough position decide so. Perhaps you think you'll get lucky, or perhaps you think you'll be rewarded for licking their jackboots from early on. But I wouldn't count on that. A lot of Stalin's fanclub ended up in the gulags, after all.
And that's the problem right there - "many people" believe so. Do you want the conviction depend on whether the jury happens to believe something is morally wrong, or do you want it to depend on whether the law says it's illegal?
And that requires you to define exactly what "rape" means. Otherwise, you'll get two people who did the exact same thing with airtight evidence, yet one walks and the other goes to prison because two juries differ not on whether the accused is guilty but on whether what they're accused of is a crime.
"Asking for", as in "supporting a course of action that will certainly result in them becoming more prevalent".
And for all that, children still need to be protected. Either the law does so or their parents will, the latter leading to extrajudicial punishment of suspected and actual child molesters by lynch mobs.
Also, you're doing the exact same thing here that allows "think of the children" to be used as an excuse for anything: thinking with your gut instead of your head. No matter how much you hate "illogical pieces of garbage" the expected results of the actions you suggest - removing the concept of age of consent from the law, or leaving it undefined - do not change, and are quite negative.
Which needs to be defined, for the reasons mentioned above.
So, how many updates has Linus signed off that, say, improved the scheduler and simultaneously made an unrelated alteration to wireless card drivers?
Well, if is outside the judicial system, he can't be given a fair trial, which means he can't be proven to be guilty, which means he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. And that, of course, means he should be released.
Alternatively, we could accept that he's guilty if someone powerful says so, but that has an obvious downside: how do you know you're not next?
Oh well. The US gave up due process with the War on Drugs, made it official with the opening of Gitmo, and has now made it the standard procedure. I guess Stalin won the Cold War afterall.
And now I'm imagining a horde of Goatse-inspired warbots charging the enemy ass first, making a drawn-out farting sound and attempting to entrap them in that gaping maw.
Thanks.
Bitcoin doesn't use floating point, it uses fixed point. From the computer's point of view it's all integer math (and the only operations are addition and substraction), which is completely precise, and only gets presented as a floating point number to the user for the sake of convenience. This wouldn't change should the current atomic unit (Satoshi) was replace by, say, nanosatoshis. And indeed, the Qt client allows you to change the unit of display.
Also, please note that traditional currencies do this kind of readjustments occasionally too, to keep the typical amounts in a range convenient to express without needing to use scientific notation. Altough it would had been better if the Bitcoin protocol would had been designed to do so automatically without needing interference - for example, if x% of transactions in the past n blocks are less or greater than some treshold, change the fixed point for the next one - just like difficulty is auto-adjusted.
Such as?
Even if your earlier statement about rounding errors was correct, a more divisible currency would actually make them less severe than one that's limited to two decimal places. A rounding error of 1/100,000,000th gives a lot less room to profit from scamming than 1/100th, after all.
Whereas it's easy to predict what will happens if they keep making such moral compromises in the name of short-term gain: the number of enemies will grow.
So what will happen when some sicko has sex with a six-year old? Four year old? A toddler? Either the age is not a factor at all, in which case you're asking for lynch mobs to take justice in their own hands (and for good reason); or it is, in which case you need to define the cutoff line where it stops being a factor to ensure equality before law.
The very fact that you felt the need to add the qualifier to "actual rape" suggests that there might be disagreement about just what the word entails, and thus the law needs to define it precisely - and that means drawing lines.
Some economists think so, yes. Some think the exact opposite. As usual, there's too many variables in economics to isolate the effects of either inflation or deflation, so everyone can rest assured their pet theories can never be proven wrong.
The mining process will only produce a finite number of Bitcoins (21,000,000), half of which have been produced. The mining reward is already only half of what it used to be, and half again, and again, and again, towards nothing.
And of course even a fixed-speed mining process would eventually cause deflation, because economic growth is exponential and will eventually overtake any linear process.
Or, if you trust your memory, you could use a deterministic wallet generated from a memorized seed, such as a long enough passphrase. That way, no backups are necessary, and it's pretty much impossible to even determine which adresses are yours.
And you know this how? You're either making shit up to appear smart, or a genuine idiot bragging about her actual extensive experience working for a drug cartel on a public web forum where your IP can be easily traced - on a story discussing a drug bust that ultimately resulted from the accused posting on a forum, no less.
Either way, epic fail.