There are lines wrapped around 4-8 blocks every Saturday here, across the street, at the church, to get clothes and household items. I live in a slum, you can see bricks through the roads--lain once, maintained never.
YOU BUILD A GIANT DOME AND HAUL IT OFF IN A SEPARATE TRASH BAG DUFUS augha tnsuhs uansthus thaus sntaohu sathu aesth aosuth snthau snthaonsuh nsatohunsh aosnhnsuheo snhaoeunshusnstnoa euhsnheuao nshaousnhnsuao hnshanosuh nshonsehunsahns uhenshuah nshaonstuhnsehnsutaohnshunsh nshsnoae unshonsh nssnto nsuthoesun enasho usnth
But it's not prohibited by the constitution to the states, or the local municipalities. So it seems states are free to mandate any waste management scheme they wish.
In the first place, labor is required to make all the things needed to produce food, and to produce food, and ship food, and prepare food. Compostable waste is then thrown away (destroyed).
Now, by collecting this waste, composting it, and reusing it as a nutrient source, some of the labor required to make the things to produce food (notably the food and feed fertilizers) is replaced by labor to reprocess waste food. This is simply collecting and stockpiling trash, mainly (and adding water, occasionally turning, very simple stuff). The raw materials that made the original fertilizers are still in this compost--the cost of mining, of processing, of purifying, and all associated labor--and thus a large amount of labor (and raw material) is saved. Further arguments can be made for capture and burning of released hydrocarbons (methane) in the process as a power source.
Thus, soil nutrients being required, and less labor being required to obtain these nutrients, the cost of growing food is reduced. Thus more food can be grown, or other stock for biofuel, and thus more labor can be employed for that purpose, and the industries supported by it (trickle down economics). Thus as well the cost of food itself should be reduced (speculation and complacency affect this, and food costs may not run down in our system; they should, but...), leaving more money in the hands of individuals to support other industries, thus supporting new labor and more jobs (trickle up economics).
Thus we have avoided destruction, and created profit.
That is a powerful incentive, but some people are retarded. Here you pay extra for excess trash; naturally a neighbor threw away 30 cans one day of usable clothes, pots, pans, and other such things. Those could have been donated to charity; instead, the wealth they represented was destroyed. She was charged for this--she should have been charged more. Destruction is not profit.
It is good for society to have a trash collection service. It is also good for society to avoid the destruction of wealth. If you destroy wealth in society, then it is well and proper that society take some of your wealth in recompense. Compostable material is valuable--and if the value of the product outweighs the economic cost of the labor, then indeed we have created new jobs (wealth) rather than a waste of labor. As with all recycling, however, there is a base cost plus a per unit cost. The per unit cost is less than the value of the product per unit; however you need a certain volume to overcome the base cost. That is why you should be charged for excess trash to encourage recycling and composting: to force you to pay the difference, either by recycling and composting (giving your trash to convert to wealth) or by money (giving your wealth directly).
Society is made more wealthy by these activities, but only if society participates. Non-participation means the economic costs are never recovered; because you are taking the means of recovery and destroying them (no trash output means no trash; high trash output means likely the average distribution of waste, some of which is reclaimable), you are both subverting a method of increasing societal wealth and costing society via inefficiency in its attempts to increase societal wealth. You are thus responsible for your actions, as they harm society. Pay up, either in aluminum or in gold.
I'm immune; I'm with a credit union they're not targeting with this ridiculous ass dance. Of course that's just a hassle; it's the charities that will pay the money out on this, and the banks that will rake it in.
Saying that the Groupon thing is a Ponzi scheme is like spitting in the face of Madoff's victims. Saying that teabaggers are fascists is making fun of the people who were tortured and killed in Mussolini's jails. Saying that my 55 years old neighbor who married a 19 year-old is a pedophile is disrespectful of those who had their 5 year-old abused by the bus driver. Saying that OWS is a revolution is an insult to the people who died to kick out dictators.
If I was a chick I would want you so bad right now.
WRONG. I've made lots of money (30% gains in under 2 weeks) on stocks that were operating at a loss. The company had good fundamentals, and was operating at a $10M loss for the quarter--the prior quarter was a $26M loss.
Share price is a function of what people will pay. You buy in low, you ride the price up. The news says something that draws interest, up goes demand, up goes price. You realize this shit is way overvalued. The stock has been climbing and climbing. You look at candlesticks, you see fluctuations, resistance levels, you see that people fought to buy in like crazy and the buyers held the price firm, but it has stalled. You distribute, selling to these fools who go, "Wow this is a good company, and their stock is climbing and climbing, I should buy in." It goes up another 1%-2%, comes down a bit, climbs back up but not quite, comes down again... double top, everyone bails because they know what that means: too much weakness, it can't make higher highs, it's going to enter a downtrend. Sell out to the rest of these fools, take their money and run, and down goes the stock price.
Then it bottoms out at a known support level. The high risk traders jump in to hold it up there, you wait. Volume starts to come, you buy in because it looks safe--3%-6% above the bottom (those high riskers just made 6% in two days and you didn't). The share price starts reaching its resistance level... oh, and announces earnings, QUICKLY spiking (or gapping!) right through resistance--sell, because it's way overbought, take more money from those idiots. Down it comes--and with luck, it finds new support at the previous resistance line, and you buy back in and go looking for the new top.
Wow google took off fast. It only lost for about half a month or so, $108 to $100, then went through the roof. I mean that's still bigger than the standard 6% stop loss, but yeah. (Google shows Google's first day as August 20 2004 at $108, and September 3 as the bottom; I don't see the original $85). Yahoo says Aug 19 2004 at $100... so yeah, good buy in.
how did this happen? Did Google not overhype its IPO, or did Google take a large holding in Google stock? Or is this a double-dip tactic, where the company pays its executives in stock and thus the increase in stock price is a good thing more important than, say, IPOing way more stock at the same price (i.e. as if the stock split and then recovered its per-share price)?
It's simple: They IPO'd. They don't give a shit about their stock price; they have your money. An IPO is always a bad buy-in because they'll do everything in the world to inflate their stock price. The IPO brings cash to the business; then us traders trade little sheets of paper back and forth for some imaginary value, hoping that we can figure out when the value is going to stop going up and then distribute our papers to other idiots, then buy them back when the value is going to stop going down. In this way we get other paper (called money) in greater quantities than the little papers (called stock) that we're trading around.
Facebook will do this too. They'll IPO, you'll hear singing praises about how this is THE IPO you want to get on--it's friggin' Facebook. You'll see their stock price go up for a day or two after. Then down it comes. LNKD did the same thing.
Donaldson does this a lot. Choke down the first 2 books of The Gap Cycle and you will never be able to peel away from the last 3. You'll be scrambling to get on the first pages of the third. Also the first book causes psychological damage. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant just continues on getting better after setup.
The distinctly odd thing about that series, though, is he reuses the same antagonist, the same plot, the same everything, over and over; yet it's coherent, and well done. Every book gets more interesting even though we're doing all the same shit all over again. This is by the use of a convenient little plot device that's very powerful and actually used pretty well.
So... PTFS and Liblime need their Wikipedia pages updated with something coherent that documents this mess. That way the Google test will always reveal such actions that reflect poorly on the company (i.e. they deal falsely and unfairly, thus their reputation is damaged by their actions--make this public and clear to enforce that damage).
Yeah, try The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson if you want your eyes to gloss over and your appreciation of the English language to go through the floor. Why do we have this many words!?
What? You got 60 pounds of fish for 8 bucks? Have you seen the brown trout here? Theyr'e like 14-18 inches long. I could beat your woman to death with one and dump her body in the river.
In emergencies, though, the knowledge is more useful than the license--nobody is going to complain if you stage a communications hub for emergency services coordination when communications is blacked out, as long as it works. Hand-offs to someone more experienced are polite, though I'd imagine somebody more skilled but unlicensed will be quickly tasked with keeping shit running.
Of course, licensing is cheap, and the licensing process maps out standard guidelines and knowledge that are important for this. A bunch of people who know what they're doing technically but don't have a common body of knowledge are going to be a confused, clumsy mess of varying technical ideas; the common body of knowledge makes them self-managing. That makes having a critical mass of licensed radio operators greatly valuable to society--they are your redundancy, they make the six month long process of engineering and implementing an ad-hoc radio network a pretty much instant job.
I've been there and done that, I've had my licenses, and I'm more of a technical guy; but I don't remember most of this stuff, so in an emergency situation I'm getting away from the communications infra. I'm more interested in overreaching planning and management these days--I can understand the techs, and I can make good use of limited resources. This is, of course, why I recognize the strong utilitarian value in having these people around.
What? I fish strictly as a means to obtain fish. It's a skill that can be honed into a survival skill--there are star anglers that catch fish for fun, not waiting out hours and days to land the big one but continuously pulling up fair-sized pan fish and throwing them back because they want the BIG big one. You can leave at 4am, go to the river, at 5am have yourself sat down checking the trout out, and at 7am head home with 8 or 10 good fish for the next few days. Do you know how much fish costs?
Record profits are not healthy. Look at the Basic Materials sector, growing faster than the S&P500 while the Financials don't. Eventually, the Basic Materials sector will slow, and Financials will start to grow again. If this never happens--if we somehow protect XLB--then there is still only so much money, and there will be continuously less wealth as more and more money flows into the mines and refineries. That leaves less money for other economic activity, as everything else starts to wither.
Eventually, these industries which have seen explosive growth--movies and CDs and tapes were a huge market for a while there--will have to experience a pull back, as consumers become bored with the theater, or as growth simply slows because people can't consume as much music and movies as gets produced. As things stabilize, these industries will shrink and others will grow. Maybe they'll grow back--probably, considering entertainment is a fundamental requirement for life--but for a while they'll lose the spotlight. The only thing that could permanently down the movie industry would be changing our views such that sex is a primary recreational activity--why in the hell do I want to watch 6 hours of TV every day when I can spend most of that time having sex with my two hot neighbors?! One movie a week maybe, but I've got shit to do!
Every industry wants that death grip, but they all have to grow and decline.
The *BSD community has been painted as being "elitist" for well over 20 years now. But that's just not the case. It's a merely a community that's built around a meritocracy. They don't care who you are, or where you're from, or what your experience is, just as long as you have skill.
I got in an argument with Theo the Rat about the performance hit of Position Independent Executables on x86. Spoiler: It's 1%, however you get a 5% boost by -fomit-stack-pointer--which doesn't work with -fPIE -fPIC, so you take a 6% hit. Most processes spend less than 0.1% in the main executable process, and so the 6% hit becomes 0.006%. The exception is X11 itself, which at the time spent a whopping 8% of its time in the main executable, making the 6% hit a 0.48% hit.
When I posted the opening argument on the OpenBSD list--Position Independent Executables give you the ability to randomly assign the base address of the executable itself, allowing increased address space layout randomization--Theo immediately started talking to me off-list. He viciously argued that this stuff was "Very Expensive" while I told him to try a complete system profile. After as little as two round trips, he started cornerstoning on the argument: "I don't even know who you are. We invented this stuff. We've been doing this for forever."
In other words, because he's Theo, and because he runs OpenBSD, I'm wrong and he's automatically right.
He also once actually gave me a rather strong-stanced argument that using any static analyzer tool to try to expose bugs "creates more security holes." Like, the whole thing Coverity occasionally runs against Linux? Don't you dare point that at OpenBSD, it'll create security holes.
I've always assumed OpenBSD was run by idiots with their heads stuck up their asses since.
I'm not signing an NDA because I'm being sent a Cease and Desist about shit that I'm not being informed about. You can't C&D me without telling me what you want me to C&D. When you raise lawsuit, I will tell the judge that you refused to inform me on what was the problem, and so I declined to enter in legal contracts under vague threats.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lines wrapped around 4-8 blocks every Saturday here, across the street, at the church, to get clothes and household items. I live in a slum, you can see bricks through the roads--lain once, maintained never.
YOU BUILD A GIANT DOME AND HAUL IT OFF IN A SEPARATE TRASH BAG DUFUS augha tnsuhs uansthus thaus sntaohu sathu aesth aosuth snthau snthaonsuh nsatohunsh aosnhnsuheo snhaoeunshusnstnoa euhsnheuao nshaousnhnsuao hnshanosuh nshonsehunsahns uhenshuah nshaonstuhnsehnsutaohnshunsh nshsnoae unshonsh nssnto nsuthoesun enasho usnth
But it's not prohibited by the constitution to the states, or the local municipalities. So it seems states are free to mandate any waste management scheme they wish.
Not necessarily.
In the first place, labor is required to make all the things needed to produce food, and to produce food, and ship food, and prepare food. Compostable waste is then thrown away (destroyed).
Now, by collecting this waste, composting it, and reusing it as a nutrient source, some of the labor required to make the things to produce food (notably the food and feed fertilizers) is replaced by labor to reprocess waste food. This is simply collecting and stockpiling trash, mainly (and adding water, occasionally turning, very simple stuff). The raw materials that made the original fertilizers are still in this compost--the cost of mining, of processing, of purifying, and all associated labor--and thus a large amount of labor (and raw material) is saved. Further arguments can be made for capture and burning of released hydrocarbons (methane) in the process as a power source.
Thus, soil nutrients being required, and less labor being required to obtain these nutrients, the cost of growing food is reduced. Thus more food can be grown, or other stock for biofuel, and thus more labor can be employed for that purpose, and the industries supported by it (trickle down economics). Thus as well the cost of food itself should be reduced (speculation and complacency affect this, and food costs may not run down in our system; they should, but...), leaving more money in the hands of individuals to support other industries, thus supporting new labor and more jobs (trickle up economics).
Thus we have avoided destruction, and created profit.
30%+ you mean.
That is a powerful incentive, but some people are retarded. Here you pay extra for excess trash; naturally a neighbor threw away 30 cans one day of usable clothes, pots, pans, and other such things. Those could have been donated to charity; instead, the wealth they represented was destroyed. She was charged for this--she should have been charged more. Destruction is not profit.
It is good for society to have a trash collection service. It is also good for society to avoid the destruction of wealth. If you destroy wealth in society, then it is well and proper that society take some of your wealth in recompense. Compostable material is valuable--and if the value of the product outweighs the economic cost of the labor, then indeed we have created new jobs (wealth) rather than a waste of labor. As with all recycling, however, there is a base cost plus a per unit cost. The per unit cost is less than the value of the product per unit; however you need a certain volume to overcome the base cost. That is why you should be charged for excess trash to encourage recycling and composting: to force you to pay the difference, either by recycling and composting (giving your trash to convert to wealth) or by money (giving your wealth directly).
Society is made more wealthy by these activities, but only if society participates. Non-participation means the economic costs are never recovered; because you are taking the means of recovery and destroying them (no trash output means no trash; high trash output means likely the average distribution of waste, some of which is reclaimable), you are both subverting a method of increasing societal wealth and costing society via inefficiency in its attempts to increase societal wealth. You are thus responsible for your actions, as they harm society. Pay up, either in aluminum or in gold.
I'm immune; I'm with a credit union they're not targeting with this ridiculous ass dance. Of course that's just a hassle; it's the charities that will pay the money out on this, and the banks that will rake it in.
Theodp? Is that Theo de Raadt bragging about his wingman scoring him a girl that'd only go for him if it was during double penetration?
Saying that the Groupon thing is a Ponzi scheme is like spitting in the face of Madoff's victims. Saying that teabaggers are fascists is making fun of the people who were tortured and killed in Mussolini's jails. Saying that my 55 years old neighbor who married a 19 year-old is a pedophile is disrespectful of those who had their 5 year-old abused by the bus driver. Saying that OWS is a revolution is an insult to the people who died to kick out dictators.
If I was a chick I would want you so bad right now.
WRONG. I've made lots of money (30% gains in under 2 weeks) on stocks that were operating at a loss. The company had good fundamentals, and was operating at a $10M loss for the quarter--the prior quarter was a $26M loss.
Share price is a function of what people will pay. You buy in low, you ride the price up. The news says something that draws interest, up goes demand, up goes price. You realize this shit is way overvalued. The stock has been climbing and climbing. You look at candlesticks, you see fluctuations, resistance levels, you see that people fought to buy in like crazy and the buyers held the price firm, but it has stalled. You distribute, selling to these fools who go, "Wow this is a good company, and their stock is climbing and climbing, I should buy in." It goes up another 1%-2%, comes down a bit, climbs back up but not quite, comes down again ... double top, everyone bails because they know what that means: too much weakness, it can't make higher highs, it's going to enter a downtrend. Sell out to the rest of these fools, take their money and run, and down goes the stock price.
Then it bottoms out at a known support level. The high risk traders jump in to hold it up there, you wait. Volume starts to come, you buy in because it looks safe--3%-6% above the bottom (those high riskers just made 6% in two days and you didn't). The share price starts reaching its resistance level ... oh, and announces earnings, QUICKLY spiking (or gapping!) right through resistance--sell, because it's way overbought, take more money from those idiots. Down it comes--and with luck, it finds new support at the previous resistance line, and you buy back in and go looking for the new top.
Wow google took off fast. It only lost for about half a month or so, $108 to $100, then went through the roof. I mean that's still bigger than the standard 6% stop loss, but yeah. (Google shows Google's first day as August 20 2004 at $108, and September 3 as the bottom; I don't see the original $85). Yahoo says Aug 19 2004 at $100 ... so yeah, good buy in.
how did this happen? Did Google not overhype its IPO, or did Google take a large holding in Google stock? Or is this a double-dip tactic, where the company pays its executives in stock and thus the increase in stock price is a good thing more important than, say, IPOing way more stock at the same price (i.e. as if the stock split and then recovered its per-share price)?
It's simple: They IPO'd. They don't give a shit about their stock price; they have your money. An IPO is always a bad buy-in because they'll do everything in the world to inflate their stock price. The IPO brings cash to the business; then us traders trade little sheets of paper back and forth for some imaginary value, hoping that we can figure out when the value is going to stop going up and then distribute our papers to other idiots, then buy them back when the value is going to stop going down. In this way we get other paper (called money) in greater quantities than the little papers (called stock) that we're trading around.
Facebook will do this too. They'll IPO, you'll hear singing praises about how this is THE IPO you want to get on--it's friggin' Facebook. You'll see their stock price go up for a day or two after. Then down it comes. LNKD did the same thing.
You don't give a good reason to preserve them, either. Their niche will be filled or eliminated by the game changing slightly.
Donaldson does this a lot. Choke down the first 2 books of The Gap Cycle and you will never be able to peel away from the last 3. You'll be scrambling to get on the first pages of the third. Also the first book causes psychological damage. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant just continues on getting better after setup.
The distinctly odd thing about that series, though, is he reuses the same antagonist, the same plot, the same everything, over and over; yet it's coherent, and well done. Every book gets more interesting even though we're doing all the same shit all over again. This is by the use of a convenient little plot device that's very powerful and actually used pretty well.
So... PTFS and Liblime need their Wikipedia pages updated with something coherent that documents this mess. That way the Google test will always reveal such actions that reflect poorly on the company (i.e. they deal falsely and unfairly, thus their reputation is damaged by their actions--make this public and clear to enforce that damage).
draw your attention away from who the real enemies are.
Congress?
The Gap Cycle was considerably more tame in terms of linguistic flourish, and many of the characters had more bonhomie.
Yeah, try The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson if you want your eyes to gloss over and your appreciation of the English language to go through the floor. Why do we have this many words!?
Death of an obsessed dragonwench.
What? You got 60 pounds of fish for 8 bucks? Have you seen the brown trout here? Theyr'e like 14-18 inches long. I could beat your woman to death with one and dump her body in the river.
In emergencies, though, the knowledge is more useful than the license--nobody is going to complain if you stage a communications hub for emergency services coordination when communications is blacked out, as long as it works. Hand-offs to someone more experienced are polite, though I'd imagine somebody more skilled but unlicensed will be quickly tasked with keeping shit running.
Of course, licensing is cheap, and the licensing process maps out standard guidelines and knowledge that are important for this. A bunch of people who know what they're doing technically but don't have a common body of knowledge are going to be a confused, clumsy mess of varying technical ideas; the common body of knowledge makes them self-managing. That makes having a critical mass of licensed radio operators greatly valuable to society--they are your redundancy, they make the six month long process of engineering and implementing an ad-hoc radio network a pretty much instant job.
I've been there and done that, I've had my licenses, and I'm more of a technical guy; but I don't remember most of this stuff, so in an emergency situation I'm getting away from the communications infra. I'm more interested in overreaching planning and management these days--I can understand the techs, and I can make good use of limited resources. This is, of course, why I recognize the strong utilitarian value in having these people around.
What? I fish strictly as a means to obtain fish. It's a skill that can be honed into a survival skill--there are star anglers that catch fish for fun, not waiting out hours and days to land the big one but continuously pulling up fair-sized pan fish and throwing them back because they want the BIG big one. You can leave at 4am, go to the river, at 5am have yourself sat down checking the trout out, and at 7am head home with 8 or 10 good fish for the next few days. Do you know how much fish costs?
Record profits are not healthy. Look at the Basic Materials sector, growing faster than the S&P500 while the Financials don't. Eventually, the Basic Materials sector will slow, and Financials will start to grow again. If this never happens--if we somehow protect XLB--then there is still only so much money, and there will be continuously less wealth as more and more money flows into the mines and refineries. That leaves less money for other economic activity, as everything else starts to wither.
Eventually, these industries which have seen explosive growth--movies and CDs and tapes were a huge market for a while there--will have to experience a pull back, as consumers become bored with the theater, or as growth simply slows because people can't consume as much music and movies as gets produced. As things stabilize, these industries will shrink and others will grow. Maybe they'll grow back--probably, considering entertainment is a fundamental requirement for life--but for a while they'll lose the spotlight. The only thing that could permanently down the movie industry would be changing our views such that sex is a primary recreational activity--why in the hell do I want to watch 6 hours of TV every day when I can spend most of that time having sex with my two hot neighbors?! One movie a week maybe, but I've got shit to do!
Every industry wants that death grip, but they all have to grow and decline.
The *BSD community has been painted as being "elitist" for well over 20 years now. But that's just not the case. It's a merely a community that's built around a meritocracy. They don't care who you are, or where you're from, or what your experience is, just as long as you have skill.
I got in an argument with Theo the Rat about the performance hit of Position Independent Executables on x86. Spoiler: It's 1%, however you get a 5% boost by -fomit-stack-pointer--which doesn't work with -fPIE -fPIC, so you take a 6% hit. Most processes spend less than 0.1% in the main executable process, and so the 6% hit becomes 0.006%. The exception is X11 itself, which at the time spent a whopping 8% of its time in the main executable, making the 6% hit a 0.48% hit.
When I posted the opening argument on the OpenBSD list--Position Independent Executables give you the ability to randomly assign the base address of the executable itself, allowing increased address space layout randomization--Theo immediately started talking to me off-list. He viciously argued that this stuff was "Very Expensive" while I told him to try a complete system profile. After as little as two round trips, he started cornerstoning on the argument: "I don't even know who you are. We invented this stuff. We've been doing this for forever."
In other words, because he's Theo, and because he runs OpenBSD, I'm wrong and he's automatically right.
He also once actually gave me a rather strong-stanced argument that using any static analyzer tool to try to expose bugs "creates more security holes." Like, the whole thing Coverity occasionally runs against Linux? Don't you dare point that at OpenBSD, it'll create security holes.
I've always assumed OpenBSD was run by idiots with their heads stuck up their asses since.
I'm not signing an NDA because I'm being sent a Cease and Desist about shit that I'm not being informed about. You can't C&D me without telling me what you want me to C&D. When you raise lawsuit, I will tell the judge that you refused to inform me on what was the problem, and so I declined to enter in legal contracts under vague threats.