Yes, that's absolutely true, but washington was an aristocrat, who already had power, authority, and wealth. The founding fathers parallel doesn't work well either, beause that had some underlying similarity to a coup. There was a power structure in the colonies that was fuctionally(by way of distance) independent of the government, and thus ripe for rebellion. I honestly don't think there's ever been a non-fictional organization with the same nature as anonymous.
One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins. The pathos reminds me of suicide bombers, throwing their own lives away to attack a group they don't like. What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause. I don't understand the mentality involved here.
regardless of how much real-world money the fraud was supposedly worth, it was all fictional money people basically invested for fun. Anyone treating a game as a serious investment has problems that the FEC can't fix.
I see this as a positive thing for EVE, because it underlies how the game is a kind of organized crime simulator all-the-more.
DDT is not banned in North Africa where malaria is a serious problem. The only impact the US ban includes(and I've researched this before because someone brought up the same stupid point in some unrelated discussion) is that the US state department will not provide direct funds for the purchase of DDT. Regardless, the DDT resistance rates in mosquito populations is much higher than you think.
People who are actually concerned with diminishing malaria don't consider DDT a viable option(at least deployed en masse). Take a look at the efforts by the Gates foundation to deal with the issue.
While it is important to be aware of the unintended consequences of legislation, your example is a poor one.
No, we can't, because cancer is caused by any mutagen. Including the sun. It's likliehood is increased by decreasing telomere length, so unless you have a means to prevent solar radiation or aging, there's always going to be at least some cancer.
"Determine these substances and ban them" is the dumbest idea ever. You are hereby prohibited from eating: Fish, grains, red meat, white meat, vegtables, and fruits. Those all have trivial ammounts of carceniogens(including bacteria and viruses). You shouldn't eat them. Take up bretharianism.
Yeah, if we started presenting evidence and not conjecture, maybe we'd be doing a better job of convincing the world, if not China, that China is up to nefarious deeds. Also, what reason does China have to attack the olympics? They just got an olympic event a couple years back? I don't see any reason to hold a grudge there.
Er, that doesn't disagree with the parent post. They were alledging that compound interest is a kind of exponential growth, and they aren't wrong. The basic formula here is A(t) = A0*(1 + i)^t, where i is the growth rate.
Yes, I've met those people. The way I understand it, the easiest way to get that level of efficiency is to make cars out of carbon fiber instead of metal. The problem currently holding such a proposal back is that there aren't any mass-manufacturing technologies for fiber parts, like there is metal. There's no fast-and-easy smelt, mold, weld way to make pieces and stick them together. We'll see how that goes.
Seriously? Your answer to this is video games? That's the reaction of a teenager. So is your "I'm too cool to have a real opinion" belief set. I don't really buy into the benefit of a two party system, but as long as we have winner-take-all elections that's what you're going to get. I'd like systemic constitutional reforms to fix that, but refusing to take part at all, only lets the "stupid cycle" continue, without your voice.
There's more shades of gray than our system of government allows, but there's so much more you could be doing than blindly "cheering" ideas you support blindly regardless of if they are partisan or not.
You have two options, if you care, work in the system or work outside the system. You've elected to ignore it and let things deteriorate because you have games. Reflect on that, please, I beg you.
Contracts establish involountary actors. That's the point of a contract in your system. You must do what the contract says as long as it's legally signed.
What I get now is you are saying you exclude parents the right to sign contracts on their behalf. This is the usual justification those arguing from your point go to. I wasn't unaware of this justification. Who then can make choices on behalf of children? Themselves? How much leeway do they get? What are the limitations? The point of my jab is not that you personally advocate that position, but that libertarian philosophy is not as self-sufficient and perfect as they make it out to be. If you want to be consistent, someone can either sell themselves into perptual slavery, or you don't really believe the point about the market being able to handle negative aspects of agreements. It was never intended as a "think of the children argument." It was intended as an abstract reductio on the subject of contracts holding indefinetly. Children are a special case because you(libertarians as a group, not you specifically) don't endorse their ability to enter contracts for themselves, therefor that power rests with their parents in some abstract "parental responsibility". I consider the whole maneuver a dodge on the idea of absolute individual authority,
The point is that contracts are enforced. You're free to make your choice about living as a monk because its limited only be your own freedom of choice. If you were compelled when you joined a monastic order to sign an agreement that stated you'd never get to leave that life, it would be an unconscionable infringement of those very same freedoms you endorse, even if it didn't seem that way at the time. People and circumstances change, and freedom should persist through those changes.
What part of an eternal contract retains the concept of essential liberty? Contracts are important to a free market, but their should be limitations on what one can restrict. Your point of view sacrifices it's own goal of individual freedom in order to preserve the anachronistic failed idea of laissez faire capitalism.
No, I'm sad that people like you exist. People who feel their voice needs to be heard in the problem solving process when they don't actually have anything to say. You make me feel like I'm watching chimps fighting over a banana. I honestly want rational human beings to be better than that.
Except the car still belongs to them because they gave you a false but guinine looking title in the first place, and that's good because you fell for it, and caveat emptor is the highest law of the land..
I normally don't engage in sensitive angry posting on the Internet because I feel it violates the ethos of a reasonable society. I feel compelled to make an exception in this case because you have personally insulted me because of my political opinion. Your beliefs in this case make you a terrible person.
I state the following without any intention of hyperbole: You are the kind of person that would allow slavery and the selling of ones children into slavery. That's the rational end-point of "contracts-as-god" philosophy you idiot libertarians engage in. You may think you're not. You may have some moderately clever justification for why not.
I don't care that you make an exception for that one case, because that means that you don't really hold to the markets-are-always-right belief you espouse. There is no real justification for banning resolving disputes in a court of law, other than fear of being judged guity for crimes and infringements you engage in. Not every choice should be an informed choice, and no contract should be infinite liability, as many of these are.
I think you and your philosophy is trerrible and do not take kindly to your insults. I do not engage in contracts I find unconscionable. That doesn't mean I don't think people aren't defrauded into a situation where they pay unreasonably to supply another person's greed.
While I'm almost certain that there's no way I can convince you that your "freedom is the only thing we need to protect" attitude grossly ignores the myriad of complex and dangerous people can interact, and the extremely cynical and manipulative behaviors sociopathic actors are willing to engage in, I can at least remain confident that you don't know a damn thing about me, personally, and are a terrible judge of character.
If you want to have a reasonable dialog about this subject, please respond, and I assure you I will not inpugn you character again. For now, I feel I must let you know you are a terrible human being and actively advocate pointless suffering.
I don't really buy the legitimacy claimed in the summary. Facebook, for example, has your permission to track everything you do. Lawyers love inserting clauses into every contract once they're aware of them.
We live in a society of a million de-facto laws created by contracts that we have no real alternatives to signing if we want to maintain a modern existance. Home Owner Associations, forced arbitration agreements, "we can terminate the contract at any time for free, but you must bay $X00 to do so".
Just because you've gotten someone to agree to something unethical, does not mean that ethical questions evaporate.
I wish people would stop making this exact post about everything they agree with. It makes you look dense and intellecually lazy. "I will supplment this reasonably cogent argument with my sarchasm. Everyone will appreciate that". As I posted above, I do have signifigant concerns about both the numbers and their relevance for blaming obama in particular. At the very least, let me say: you're not helping, nor are you being funny.
For a post complaining about mindless partisanship, you sure do seem to be engaging in bland repetitive rhetoric.
There's 2 problems with this argument that really really bad.
1. Bush signed the 2009 budget right before he left office. I still hold congress accountable for budget descisions, but it was in no way Obama who made any spending choices until 2010, whereupon republicans stonewalled any budget bill until halfway through the year. Obama has had no unopposed budget proposals. It very much smells of hypocricy. 2. 2009's budget in particular included about 800 billion in immediate spending that has no impact on the long term budget deficit. It was the much-hated "TARP" program that bought semi-liquid assetts with government money to add liquidity to the market. Almost all of that money has already been repaid. That's a huge chunk of the "Obama spending" that people complain about.
The real drivers of the post 2009 deficit are basically the same things that got us into the mess in the first plac.e 1. Historically low revenues driven by a. Bush tax cuts being continued(approximately 500 billion per year minimum estimate) b. Weak economy(around 300 billion per year) 2. 2 wars and providing equipment and funding to other NATO nations in Libya.
ALL other spending has stayed well within the bounds of inflation. The only point I really see being legitimately true here is that the stimulus attempts did not work as intended, which means there was a catastrophic waste of money involved.
No, actually the problem is the opposite. Independent games on steam seem to have some sort of quality control, whereas xbox indie games include a ton of trash that block out the decent items.
I'm pretty sure most people were saying that DJ hero was an uninspired idea in forsight.
Dear Kotick, people actually do get tired of cash-ins. I know that's literally everything that you've ever produced at EA, but there is more potential to a series than functionally-identical sequels with marginally different content.
It basically is. This is comparable in size to an HDD, meaning it doesn't really outpace a RAID for storage potential, and most people do over-the-net transfers for all but the biggest chunks of data. This only makes sense as a replacement for backup tapes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's absolutely true, but washington was an aristocrat, who already had power, authority, and wealth. The founding fathers parallel doesn't work well either, beause that had some underlying similarity to a coup. There was a power structure in the colonies that was fuctionally(by way of distance) independent of the government, and thus ripe for rebellion. I honestly don't think there's ever been a non-fictional organization with the same nature as anonymous.
One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins. The pathos reminds me of suicide bombers, throwing their own lives away to attack a group they don't like. What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause. I don't understand the mentality involved here.
Actually, that seems to be the majority of people falling for Ponzi schemes lately. Just look at who invests in hedge funds.
regardless of how much real-world money the fraud was supposedly worth, it was all fictional money people basically invested for fun. Anyone treating a game as a serious investment has problems that the FEC can't fix.
I see this as a positive thing for EVE, because it underlies how the game is a kind of organized crime simulator all-the-more.
The problem is that these zombies participate in illegal activities, likke unsolicited commercial email, or DDOS attacks.
DDT is not banned in North Africa where malaria is a serious problem. The only impact the US ban includes(and I've researched this before because someone brought up the same stupid point in some unrelated discussion) is that the US state department will not provide direct funds for the purchase of DDT. Regardless, the DDT resistance rates in mosquito populations is much higher than you think.
People who are actually concerned with diminishing malaria don't consider DDT a viable option(at least deployed en masse). Take a look at the efforts by the Gates foundation to deal with the issue.
While it is important to be aware of the unintended consequences of legislation, your example is a poor one.
No, we can't, because cancer is caused by any mutagen. Including the sun. It's likliehood is increased by decreasing telomere length, so unless you have a means to prevent solar radiation or aging, there's always going to be at least some cancer.
"Determine these substances and ban them" is the dumbest idea ever. You are hereby prohibited from eating: Fish, grains, red meat, white meat, vegtables, and fruits. Those all have trivial ammounts of carceniogens(including bacteria and viruses). You shouldn't eat them. Take up bretharianism.
Yes, DRM is literally the worst thing for consumer freedom since company stores.
Yep, I remember when Firefox removed this feature because it was only really useful to 56k users.
Yeah, if we started presenting evidence and not conjecture, maybe we'd be doing a better job of convincing the world, if not China, that China is up to nefarious deeds. Also, what reason does China have to attack the olympics? They just got an olympic event a couple years back? I don't see any reason to hold a grudge there.
Er, that doesn't disagree with the parent post. They were alledging that compound interest is a kind of exponential growth, and they aren't wrong. The basic formula here is A(t) = A0*(1 + i)^t, where i is the growth rate.
I don't get your objection.
Yes, I've met those people. The way I understand it, the easiest way to get that level of efficiency is to make cars out of carbon fiber instead of metal. The problem currently holding such a proposal back is that there aren't any mass-manufacturing technologies for fiber parts, like there is metal. There's no fast-and-easy smelt, mold, weld way to make pieces and stick them together. We'll see how that goes.
Seriously? Your answer to this is video games? That's the reaction of a teenager. So is your "I'm too cool to have a real opinion" belief set. I don't really buy into the benefit of a two party system, but as long as we have winner-take-all elections that's what you're going to get. I'd like systemic constitutional reforms to fix that, but refusing to take part at all, only lets the "stupid cycle" continue, without your voice.
There's more shades of gray than our system of government allows, but there's so much more you could be doing than blindly "cheering" ideas you support blindly regardless of if they are partisan or not.
You have two options, if you care, work in the system or work outside the system. You've elected to ignore it and let things deteriorate because you have games. Reflect on that, please, I beg you.
Contracts establish involountary actors. That's the point of a contract in your system. You must do what the contract says as long as it's legally signed.
What I get now is you are saying you exclude parents the right to sign contracts on their behalf. This is the usual justification those arguing from your point go to. I wasn't unaware of this justification. Who then can make choices on behalf of children? Themselves? How much leeway do they get? What are the limitations? The point of my jab is not that you personally advocate that position, but that libertarian philosophy is not as self-sufficient and perfect as they make it out to be. If you want to be consistent, someone can either sell themselves into perptual slavery, or you don't really believe the point about the market being able to handle negative aspects of agreements. It was never intended as a "think of the children argument." It was intended as an abstract reductio on the subject of contracts holding indefinetly. Children are a special case because you(libertarians as a group, not you specifically) don't endorse their ability to enter contracts for themselves, therefor that power rests with their parents in some abstract "parental responsibility". I consider the whole maneuver a dodge on the idea of absolute individual authority,
The point is that contracts are enforced. You're free to make your choice about living as a monk because its limited only be your own freedom of choice. If you were compelled when you joined a monastic order to sign an agreement that stated you'd never get to leave that life, it would be an unconscionable infringement of those very same freedoms you endorse, even if it didn't seem that way at the time. People and circumstances change, and freedom should persist through those changes.
What part of an eternal contract retains the concept of essential liberty? Contracts are important to a free market, but their should be limitations on what one can restrict. Your point of view sacrifices it's own goal of individual freedom in order to preserve the anachronistic failed idea of laissez faire capitalism.
No, I'm sad that people like you exist. People who feel their voice needs to be heard in the problem solving process when they don't actually have anything to say. You make me feel like I'm watching chimps fighting over a banana. I honestly want rational human beings to be better than that.
Well, Russia has been a sort-of ally of Iran since the Islamic revolution went anti-American.
Except the car still belongs to them because they gave you a false but guinine looking title in the first place, and that's good because you fell for it, and caveat emptor is the highest law of the land..
I normally don't engage in sensitive angry posting on the Internet because I feel it violates the ethos of a reasonable society. I feel compelled to make an exception in this case because you have personally insulted me because of my political opinion. Your beliefs in this case make you a terrible person.
I state the following without any intention of hyperbole: You are the kind of person that would allow slavery and the selling of ones children into slavery. That's the rational end-point of "contracts-as-god" philosophy you idiot libertarians engage in. You may think you're not. You may have some moderately clever justification for why not.
I don't care that you make an exception for that one case, because that means that you don't really hold to the markets-are-always-right belief you espouse. There is no real justification for banning resolving disputes in a court of law, other than fear of being judged guity for crimes and infringements you engage in. Not every choice should be an informed choice, and no contract should be infinite liability, as many of these are.
I think you and your philosophy is trerrible and do not take kindly to your insults. I do not engage in contracts I find unconscionable. That doesn't mean I don't think people aren't defrauded into a situation where they pay unreasonably to supply another person's greed.
While I'm almost certain that there's no way I can convince you that your "freedom is the only thing we need to protect" attitude grossly ignores the myriad of complex and dangerous people can interact, and the extremely cynical and manipulative behaviors sociopathic actors are willing to engage in, I can at least remain confident that you don't know a damn thing about me, personally, and are a terrible judge of character.
If you want to have a reasonable dialog about this subject, please respond, and I assure you I will not inpugn you character again. For now, I feel I must let you know you are a terrible human being and actively advocate pointless suffering.
I don't really buy the legitimacy claimed in the summary. Facebook, for example, has your permission to track everything you do. Lawyers love inserting clauses into every contract once they're aware of them.
We live in a society of a million de-facto laws created by contracts that we have no real alternatives to signing if we want to maintain a modern existance. Home Owner Associations, forced arbitration agreements, "we can terminate the contract at any time for free, but you must bay $X00 to do so".
Just because you've gotten someone to agree to something unethical, does not mean that ethical questions evaporate.
I wish people would stop making this exact post about everything they agree with. It makes you look dense and intellecually lazy.
"I will supplment this reasonably cogent argument with my sarchasm. Everyone will appreciate that". As I posted above, I do have signifigant concerns about both the numbers and their relevance for blaming obama in particular. At the very least, let me say: you're not helping, nor are you being funny.
For a post complaining about mindless partisanship, you sure do seem to be engaging in bland repetitive rhetoric.
There's 2 problems with this argument that really really bad.
1. Bush signed the 2009 budget right before he left office. I still hold congress accountable for budget descisions, but it was in no way Obama who made any spending choices until 2010, whereupon republicans stonewalled any budget bill until halfway through the year. Obama has had no unopposed budget proposals. It very much smells of hypocricy.
2. 2009's budget in particular included about 800 billion in immediate spending that has no impact on the long term budget deficit. It was the much-hated "TARP" program that bought semi-liquid assetts with government money to add liquidity to the market. Almost all of that money has already been repaid. That's a huge chunk of the "Obama spending" that people complain about.
The real drivers of the post 2009 deficit are basically the same things that got us into the mess in the first plac.e
1. Historically low revenues driven by
a. Bush tax cuts being continued(approximately 500 billion per year minimum estimate)
b. Weak economy(around 300 billion per year)
2. 2 wars and providing equipment and funding to other NATO nations in Libya.
ALL other spending has stayed well within the bounds of inflation. The only point I really see being legitimately true here is that the stimulus attempts did not work as intended, which means there was a catastrophic waste of money involved.
That and so much more. Art should never have marketting, because that demands a complete lack of subtlety.
No, actually the problem is the opposite. Independent games on steam seem to have some sort of quality control, whereas xbox indie games include a ton of trash that block out the decent items.
I'm pretty sure most people were saying that DJ hero was an uninspired idea in forsight.
Dear Kotick,
people actually do get tired of cash-ins. I know that's literally everything that you've ever produced at EA, but there is more potential to a series than functionally-identical sequels with marginally different content.
It basically is. This is comparable in size to an HDD, meaning it doesn't really outpace a RAID for storage potential, and most people do over-the-net transfers for all but the biggest chunks of data. This only makes sense as a replacement for backup tapes.