If you want to produce the car of the future, great. Absolutely. But don't call before it's done.
That's just not how the business world works. Investment is attracted to buzz. They don't have a choice if they want to secure funding.
No, it's not how the Tech Business World apparently works. In any other business, you actually have to have a working product and some sort of track record as a business before you can get people interested in investing.
If you book an outcall I'll even visit your office and sit on your cock while you're writing up a post for Slashdot if this is what turns you on and take a picture so you can prove it later.
So that's what the guy in the next cubicle was shouting about just now.
How about the term is dropped in it's entirety, it is pretty derogatory, just dumping entirely different people into the same group, what does it even mean. It's like trying to fix wog, dago or spic, WTF?
I think the rule is that if a group chooses to apply a term to itself, it's not derogatory.
Uh... free-market economies are responsible for the past two centuries of economic growth: the most massive and sustained improvement in the human condition ever.
For an economic system that always fails, are you absolutely sure that you're not thinking of socialism?
The point is that at best we have had pseudo-free-market economies.
I suppose you can argue that things were better with less regulation in the early-mid Nineteenth Century (and ignore why more regulation came about in the first place), but you can't argue that they were pure free markets even then.
The problem with leaving investing in the hands of the private sector is that the private sector would gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.
The real problem is that they would take the dollar as pure profit and ignore the costs to society, because they are harder to quantify.
It's like how companies building nuclear power plants are guaranteed a profit because ultimately the taxpayer takes the costs and risks of waste disposal, decontamination and storage, never mind potential catastrophic accidents.
It doesn't mean nuclear power plants are wrong, simply that is absurd to allow private companies to extract any short term profit from them.
No, that's the "well if we don't sell electric shock torture devices to totalitarian regimes then someone else will" argument. Sometimes a thing is morally right or wrong, regardless of short term economic disadvantages.
Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy,...
That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.
Investing is gambling.
Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you a "sure thing", which only reinforces my point.
If you are sensible and have a reasonably large amount of money to start with (so you can think long term and live off your existing money in the short term) then investing is the exact opposite of gambling. Except in the short term, rich people get richer with no risk. All they have to do is not be greedy.
The goal is to get in early and out on time. It's pretty much like the stock market, you pick one company and hope it does better before you sell out at peak performance.
That is pretty much also the definition of winning in a Ponzi scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Still trying to figure out what problem autonomous driving is trying to solve.
Well at least that's easy: it's the problem of road casualties/deaths, the vast majority of which are caused by driver error of one sort or another.
If you want to produce the car of the future, great. Absolutely. But don't call before it's done.
That's just not how the business world works. Investment is attracted to buzz. They don't have a choice if they want to secure funding.
No, it's not how the Tech Business World apparently works. In any other business, you actually have to have a working product and some sort of track record as a business before you can get people interested in investing.
Maybe he has nearsightedness, and was trying to read the teeny tiny text on the front of her shirt
Good luck with that one at your next disciplinary hearing.
No! I'm a high priced escort who browses Slashdot!
If you book an outcall I'll even visit your office and sit on your cock while you're writing up a post for Slashdot if this is what turns you on and take a picture so you can prove it later.
So that's what the guy in the next cubicle was shouting about just now.
Our IQs are way above average
Fascinatingly, every single person on slashdot has a near-genius IQ. Coincidence? I think not.
Executive summary: you are an utterly incompetent teacher.
Why not just refute his argument instead of mocking?
That would be a bit like trying to have a serious debate with the Time Cube guy.
How about the term is dropped in it's entirety, it is pretty derogatory, just dumping entirely different people into the same group, what does it even mean. It's like trying to fix wog, dago or spic, WTF?
I think the rule is that if a group chooses to apply a term to itself, it's not derogatory.
I had no idea that latina was even a word.
Someone's not been looking at the various categories on their favourite porn site have they?
free markets [...] always fail.
Uh ... free-market economies are responsible for the past two centuries of economic growth: the most massive and sustained improvement in the human condition ever.
For an economic system that always fails, are you absolutely sure that you're not thinking of socialism?
The point is that at best we have had pseudo-free-market economies.
I suppose you can argue that things were better with less regulation in the early-mid Nineteenth Century (and ignore why more regulation came about in the first place), but you can't argue that they were pure free markets even then.
The problem with leaving investing in the hands of the private sector is that the private sector would gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.
The real problem is that they would take the dollar as pure profit and ignore the costs to society, because they are harder to quantify.
It's like how companies building nuclear power plants are guaranteed a profit because ultimately the taxpayer takes the costs and risks of waste disposal, decontamination and storage, never mind potential catastrophic accidents.
It doesn't mean nuclear power plants are wrong, simply that is absurd to allow private companies to extract any short term profit from them.
I can't speak for Ireland, but lots of countries have "sovereign wealth" funds. Opinion clearly differs on what is a "proper" function of government.
For the large libertarian element of slashdot, there are basically no proper functions of government. Except possibly for the military.
No, that's the "well if we don't sell electric shock torture devices to totalitarian regimes then someone else will" argument. Sometimes a thing is morally right or wrong, regardless of short term economic disadvantages.
EDITORS, EDIT !!!
YMBNH.
Windows 10 is the best, most error free Operating system ever creates
I can hear the pitchforks being sharpened and torches crackling into life already.
Armchair lawyers are hilarious morons.
Oh boy you're in trouble now. He's going to sue the living fuck out of you.
The headline sounds like it was written by a 12-year-old
In slashdot terms, that's a fucking compliment.
Ditto for blink
Fascists.
Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, ...
That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.
Investing is gambling.
Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you a "sure thing", which only reinforces my point.
If you are sensible and have a reasonably large amount of money to start with (so you can think long term and live off your existing money in the short term) then investing is the exact opposite of gambling. Except in the short term, rich people get richer with no risk. All they have to do is not be greedy.
The goal is to get in early and out on time. It's pretty much like the stock market, you pick one company and hope it does better before you sell out at peak performance.
That is pretty much also the definition of winning in a Ponzi scheme.
A unicorn is a woman who wants to be in a relationship with an established man/wife couple.
Since when?
This is like how I studied Latin for 5 years, and as a result I can now work out what year buildings were put up.
More like you studied Latin for 5 minutes and spent the rest of the time giving yourself hand shandies.
Security has three parts, confidentiality, integrity, and availability
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!