There's no money in money either, just pieces of paper backed by the US Government.
But there's value in money, so long as people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services. And I think you inadvertently made my point about T-bills. The government sells a T-bill for something of value (cash, the result of goods or services produced by somebody else). The T-bill has value only because of the government's promise to pay it back later. This is how the government borrows money. That's why it doesn't make any sense for the government to buy T-bills from itself! It's like writing yourself an IOU for five bucks, selling it to yourself for five bucks, and then spending the five bucks. All you're left with is an IOU. The five bucks is gone.If you need to spend another five bucks, you have to do what the government does, and rob the nearest guy with something of value.
No, it's not the same, because the bank is buying things that other people are objectively willing to pay money for. Those things have real, actual, value. The bonds being held by the Social Security fund are cannot even be sold. They have no objective value. They are simply chits.
Here's a better analogy: Your bank prints several thousand fancy certificates. It then uses its cash deposits to purchase those certificates from itself for a million dollars each. The revenues from the sales are marked as profits and distributed to the bank owners and executives. So now, at the end of the day, the vault is filled with certificates that the bank says are worth a million dollars each, and all the valuable assets have been given away. Are you saying you would be okay with this?
You might say it's different for the government, because they can FORCE people to give it money which it can use to buy those bonds back. That is, of course true - but people should be under no illusions that anything at all has been saved. The money can only come from taxation that has NOT YET OCURRED, so in order to cover those differences, the government must either (a) cut spending, (b) raise taxes, or (c) borrow yet more money. The idea that there is this pool of money, or a fund with actual valuable assets in it, is simply FALSE.
Investing in growth hardly implies a pyramid scheme anyway
That might be true, but what makes it a scheme there is nothing invested in Social Security. It has no real assets. All the "trust fund" holds are special-issue treasury bonds. The cash that was collected from taxpayers was spent on the bonds, and the money the treasury made on the bond sales went into - what else? - general revenues, and was spent long ago. The only value the bonds have is based on the ability of the treasury to buy them back with tax revenues not yet collected! There is NO money in the Social Security fund!
They do "allow" you to use other file systems - nothing stops you from installing a third-party driver for ext3, for example - but they don't develop them and don't support them, which seems reasonable, because they have no control over their development.
It also amuses me that there is a large overlap between those who express fear of government power and abuse, but don't believe in the peoples' rights to own military-grade weapons.
But the phenome "wee" is NOT meaningless in English. It has several meanings already, many of which are not flattering. That's what the brouhaha is over. Nobody would care that much if it was a nonsense word like "vaio."
One interesting comment I read emphasized how easy Wii is to pronounce, write and remember in any language.
How can you say that, when it's not even obvious how to pronounce it in ENGLISH? Not to mention, there are plenty of lanugages (like German) that lack a "W" phenome (german "W" is pronounced like English "V"). The very fact that Nintendo had to instruct people how to pronounce proves you are incorrect.
Re:Here's what I see coming out of this
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
This will continue.
No, it won't. It's hilarious to some and shocking to others, but after a week it will be old news.
The problem is that even if all of what you say is true, it is still a terrible name because it plays against the buying habits of Americans (maybe westerners in general) to buy things that are BIGGER! STRONGER! FASTER! BETTER! NOW 50% MORE EXTREME! The market for "smaller, less powerful, and communitarian" may be big in Japan, but in America is, well, wee.
I haven't run the new Vista betas, but has anybody checked whether you can simply import the author's CA (whatever it might be) as a trusted authority the way you can in XP? That would make the signing requirement a non-issue, but would require an explicit declaration of trust.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are always guilty of hypocrisy, your ethical system is impractical.
But there's value in money, so long as people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services. And I think you inadvertently made my point about T-bills. The government sells a T-bill for something of value (cash, the result of goods or services produced by somebody else). The T-bill has value only because of the government's promise to pay it back later. This is how the government borrows money. That's why it doesn't make any sense for the government to buy T-bills from itself! It's like writing yourself an IOU for five bucks, selling it to yourself for five bucks, and then spending the five bucks. All you're left with is an IOU. The five bucks is gone.If you need to spend another five bucks, you have to do what the government does, and rob the nearest guy with something of value.
Here's a better analogy: Your bank prints several thousand fancy certificates. It then uses its cash deposits to purchase those certificates from itself for a million dollars each. The revenues from the sales are marked as profits and distributed to the bank owners and executives. So now, at the end of the day, the vault is filled with certificates that the bank says are worth a million dollars each, and all the valuable assets have been given away. Are you saying you would be okay with this?
You might say it's different for the government, because they can FORCE people to give it money which it can use to buy those bonds back. That is, of course true - but people should be under no illusions that anything at all has been saved. The money can only come from taxation that has NOT YET OCURRED, so in order to cover those differences, the government must either (a) cut spending, (b) raise taxes, or (c) borrow yet more money. The idea that there is this pool of money, or a fund with actual valuable assets in it, is simply FALSE.
It IS optional in IE7. Google's just whining because MSN is the default.
That might be true, but what makes it a scheme there is nothing invested in Social Security. It has no real assets. All the "trust fund" holds are special-issue treasury bonds. The cash that was collected from taxpayers was spent on the bonds, and the money the treasury made on the bond sales went into - what else? - general revenues, and was spent long ago. The only value the bonds have is based on the ability of the treasury to buy them back with tax revenues not yet collected! There is NO money in the Social Security fund!
They do "allow" you to use other file systems - nothing stops you from installing a third-party driver for ext3, for example - but they don't develop them and don't support them, which seems reasonable, because they have no control over their development.
It also amuses me that there is a large overlap between those who express fear of government power and abuse, but don't believe in the peoples' rights to own military-grade weapons.
What about OFFICE SPACE? That had hacking in it too!
Was it a trap?
WarGames is a major offender on that one! They even apologize for it in the commentary.
You also really could get free long distance back then by blueboxing. Also, the wardialer shown in the movie really is a useful tool.
All true geeks use a Model M.
For someone who claims to love the movie, I'd think you'd know it was Joshua, not Jason! Nerd card SUSPENDED!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson
But the phenome "wee" is NOT meaningless in English. It has several meanings already, many of which are not flattering. That's what the brouhaha is over. Nobody would care that much if it was a nonsense word like "vaio."
Don't forget the Star Wars.
we all know how 2 front wars end.With your enemies submitting to unconditional surrender?
Then you should have said what you meant, instead of saying something else.
It decreases development time and support hassles. That may or may not be a good reason, but it is a valid one.
How can you say that, when it's not even obvious how to pronounce it in ENGLISH? Not to mention, there are plenty of lanugages (like German) that lack a "W" phenome (german "W" is pronounced like English "V"). The very fact that Nintendo had to instruct people how to pronounce proves you are incorrect.
No, it won't. It's hilarious to some and shocking to others, but after a week it will be old news.
Good point. If they would have at least called it the Nintendo "You're in", it would have helped dispell the iamge that Nintendo is for little kids.
The problem is that even if all of what you say is true, it is still a terrible name because it plays against the buying habits of Americans (maybe westerners in general) to buy things that are BIGGER! STRONGER! FASTER! BETTER! NOW 50% MORE EXTREME! The market for "smaller, less powerful, and communitarian" may be big in Japan, but in America is, well, wee.
How's that Xbox 360 hacking coming along?
I haven't run the new Vista betas, but has anybody checked whether you can simply import the author's CA (whatever it might be) as a trusted authority the way you can in XP? That would make the signing requirement a non-issue, but would require an explicit declaration of trust.