Eh, yes that's exactly what they do. As long as they hold 3% worth of deposits they can multiply it, in this case ultimately about 30 times as they loan it out. They don't multiply anything. You're simply operating on the assumption that the money you have in the bank actually exists which it doesn't. As I said, if people tried to withdraw more money from a bank than there are reserves of the bank would be screwed (well not that much, thanks to federal insurance on deposits). If they actually made money then there would be no problems with this scenario. A bank is essentially an investment in essence. You give them your money so they can loan it out to other people, thats how it works.
How else do you explain the fact that the credit card companies aren't breaking down the doors of the fraudsters and auctioning off everything they own? It's because credit card fraud is no big deal.
And that is because it's not real money. It's magic'd money. Actually its because in many cases its the merchant not the bank that is liable for fraudulent transactions. So they literary lose nothing from fraud in monetary terms and possibly even make money from fraud.
They don't create any money in this way at all, they simply move it about. When you put your money into a bank the whole point is that the bank is free to do whatever they want with the money. They never claim that they will hold it in their vault or some such. The great depression was partially caused by that very fact, everyone wanted their money out of the banks and the banks couldn't give it to them since they no longer had it.
They could skip right past fossil fuels and discover biodiesel, fuel cells, solar cells and other modern forms of energy.
Then one of them realizes that all that oil in the ground can be removed and used for much less than any other source of energy, especially those inefficient batteries. They promptly invent a gasoline engine, make an army and take over the world. Likely the airplane alone that they'd be able to make as a result of their gas engines would let them come out way ahead.
No, I'm claiming nothing at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I specifically said nothing about what I think of this law or what category it falls into. I was commenting on the argument used by the original poster not on the validity of the argument's conclusion.
I replied to someone who claimed that this law is not a nanny state law because it may (or rather is designed/supposed to) prevent something bad from happening (fraud). I simply claimed that by that definition all my examples are also not nanny state laws since they too may (or rather are claimed to) prevent something bad from happening (and I listed exactly what each claims to prevent).
In other words I claim that if you like the original poster believe that X is true because it has property Z then imho logically you must also believe that Y is true as it also has property Z. Most people simply wouldn't find Y to be true thus the contradiction.
If you justify something as not being a nanny state law or as being a good law even simply because it prevents something bad from happening (in some cases, when idiots are involved, when reality ceases to exist, in the words of the law proponents or in any such way) then all of those are either not nanny state laws or good laws.
Oh then what is a nanny state, let's see now by your logic none of these are bad as they perform a social good: -Banning smoking is there to keep people from being subjected to a dangerous substance -Same for banning junk food. -Same for banning any violent media, for psychological reasons to prevent people from becoming murderers. -Banning term such as master/slaveon hard drives is there to prevent social discrimination, unconsciously, of certain groups or causing said group to be subjected to mental anguish. -Cutting down of mature chestnut trees as it keeps children from slipping on fallen nuts.
Revolution is coming Well you go on thinking that. Just like the socialists, the communists, the hippies and all the other such groups. No one cares. No one cares about all the abuse by the FBI, CIA, president and so on that has been going on for decades (see Nixon). It used to be that almost anything was allowed because of the communists lurking behind every corner, now its because of the terrorists or the pedophiles or god knows what group.
I doubt you'd want a revolution anyway, the result of it wouldn't be a more democratic system but rather a directorship (in actuality if not in name at first). That is the only possible form of revolution remaining now, a takeover by a small group or a single person largely ignoring the masses themselves (save for token support such as riots or such).
Consider that a large volume of research indicates that the American health care system is grossly inefficient. If Google can supplant or merely gain better oversight of any element of this inefficient apparatus, it can potentially save money. No it can't, apparently you consider efficiency to be money spent per person. By giving its employees easier access to a dentists google is INCREASING the system's efficiency by increasing the number of unnecessary visits to the dentist. Since the money goes to the exact same health system as any other dentist I ask once again what magical change happens to money that enter's the health system on google's property? I mean are there magical efficiency fairies that dab their little wands over the transactions or something? Also, the dentists likely comes in a big van and this van goes to many companies in the area, so no he/she likely does not physically reside on google property in anything but a temporary fashion. Likewise there is the inefficiency induced by oversight that google must do of this system and so on.
Therefore, it stands to reason that this program could serve Google's interest. Of course it serves google's interest but that just means it helps extract more work time from workers. This does not save the workers or the health care system any money, it actually costs more money to both than other systems. To quote you "Where do you think the money your employer is shoveling into the fire on your behalf comes from? It comes from your salary."
You are either deliberately ignoring the point, or a colossal idiot. Which it is may soon become clear. Either way, you are an arrogant cock, and seriously need to shut your childish little mouth before more people become aware of this. Yeah, god forbid all these scary anonymous cowards on the interweb learn that I'm an asshole here half the time. It's great stress relief to be one I must say and if I didn't want to be one I would remain my nice helpful civil self all the time (but I just don't find some posters worth that sort of reply). Its really amusing how you can annoy people by just changing the tone of how you reply. I mean did you expect to be anything but amused by your attempts to insult me?
I didn't get that from what was posted. What I got from his(?) posts is that OSS code is usually a complete and undocumented fucking mess. He's right - I've had a go at adding features to some code, but it was so poorly documented and badly written that trying to fix it was just not worth it. It's usually more effort than it's worth to learn more than a couple of thousand lines of undocumented code to add a feature when you can get something else that does the same job? Did he get something else that did the same job? I don't see how he could have or he is not telling the whole story. There are how many dozens if not hundreds of word processors out there that are open source? He apparently needed a horribly simple one if he managed to code up all his word processor need in Visual C#, from sratch to boot, so why did he look at overly complex office suites?
Ah. You're one of those people, who feels the need to comment on anything that is said. I don't know why I bothered typing this up. There's probably no hope for you, you hyper-aggressive little shit. Ooooh, thats the first time that sort of insult was thrown at me. I really do need to start writing these down.
I was simply pointing out that what he said made little sense since Visual C# is hardly a word processor. If he wanted a word processor that did something then he didn't get one in anything but the simplest sense.
I may be bucking the general consensus, but a lot of people would not consider this a good thing. If its severe autism make them take care of the autistic kid for a few years and I'm sure almost all will be begging for the drug.
First, there are the religious types, who dissapprove because "that's how God made them." Most don't seem to mind current medicine so thats a moot point.
Then there are the parents (religious or not) who say "my child is special and I wouldn't want them any other way." You'd be surprised how often this sentiment gets expressed. When you need to deal with an autistic kid for their whole life then I'd be surprised if you didn't rationalize it somehow to keep your own sanity.
Not to say that I believe in ID theory, but your reasoning faces the flaw that what you consider simple and elegant is vastly different than what an omniscient being with infinite mental capacity believes is simple. Yet if a human can find obvious flaws and inefficiencies that evidently only exist because of the inefficiencies inherent in evolution then it is very unlikely that they are efficient by any standard.
Also, nature selects for the simple and elegant anyway, No it selects for the most efficient method (for passing along the genes of a creature) at the time given the constraint of only incremental changes and not taking into account predictable but not yet present environmental effects. This is neither the simplest nor the most elegant method.
Our genes for example are filled with crap, its simply not worth it to remove it for nature although a general cleanup would improve efficiency. Bacteria that live in unfavorable environments where such efficiency matters more did get rid of the junk in their own dna.
You're the one who said it saves people money so it is you who should provide the numbers to back up your claim.
Who do you think pays for that dentist's services themselves? Let me give you a hint, it's not google. Google is not a health care provider and likely has no desire to deal with the headaches involved (insurance, goverment oversight, lawsuits, etc.). See every google employee likely has a dental plan, with a number of choices of plans from various providers I can only hope. Now google brings to their campus a dentist who accepts one or more of those plans, paying the dentist to come there of course. Google employees then use their dental plan, well those that have that the dentist accepts, to pay for the dentist just as if they had gone to any other dentist in their plan.
So what exactly was your point and how do employees save money again? Does being physically on the google campus somehow magically make any money that goes to that dentist flow more easily through the health care system?
You're correct. I wanted the feature. And despite your knee-jerk reaction, I did intend to code it myself. However, my knowledge of programming word processors is not very expansive. That is, oddly enough, why I went on forums to ask for pointers on how I'd learn to do this. What did you expect them to tell you? I'm sorry but trying to explain a complex thing to someone can take longer than coding up a feature yourself. It sucks but people have lives. There is little advice to be given that google can't answer unless its a specific question.
The people who know the software didn't learn it from some magical unknown documentation system but by working on the source. They can't rip out that knowledge and shove it into you, the best they can tell you is to do what they did. Sometimes a few useful resources that aren't obvious exist but usually they don't.
If someone hasn't written up documentation for the source yet then why do you expect them to do so for you?
The point of my story -- that evaded you -- was that people casually and incorrectly assume that because the source is open, that it's easy to learn from and modify. It's not. Especially so for something as large as Open Office. I never assumed that, I still wish to kill every single mozilla person who thought that making half assed extension dev. documentation was a good idea. Nonetheless I don't see what you expected from them.
Btw, you know what method I eventually settled on? Visual C#... free, and closed-source. C# is a programming language running on a framework. It has a documentation language specification and has open source implementations. Visual C# is an IDE for said language although it is only a tool.
So google not only pays for a dental plan but also for a dentist to come there... in other words they spend MORE than if they just had a dental plan. guess where that money comes from? No, its not the tooth fairy.
Well what the fuck DID you expect to happen? You asked for new features which YOU wanted so they told YOU to code them if you wanted them. The alternative is to get someone else to be interested and willing to code them but not many such people exist, those that do may likely not finish the project. So what did you do? Throw a hissy fit and give up? I've seen people who wanted certain features and saw how much effort they put into getting someone to code them up. Likely you just lack a spine, determination and probably whine too much for anyone to bother listening to you.
I mean, at least you CAN get the features added if you really want them unlike closed software. The alternative is to convince the people writing the software to do it for you, just like proprietary software except likely easier to do.
Of course they would be countable by people by my point is that a full recount would be done, by default, by machines. Now you could test the machine counts with random hand counted samples and so on. However you can do the exact same thing with a fully electronic system that has paper ballots. In either case you'd have a machine in charge of the ballot counting with a hand recount (or count by different companies machine) if discrepancies were found except that in one case you'd waste a lot of time (and money) on intermediate steps. Hand ballots and mass hand recounts on the other hand have tons of counting problems and errors of their own, see Florida for example.
I don't see any system that is better than an open electronic count with medium scale random machine recounts and smaller scale hand recounts for verification. Three levels of verification by three parties and machines from two separate companies. If discrepancies show up (including those against voter counts before the voting which are logged using a third separate system) then a full scale recount is done, machine counting with hand verification once again (unless the machine counting system had problems itself).
Of course to count those votes a machine would need to be used, after all the paper ballots are of high quality and likely designed specifically so a machine can count them. But since we know its a law of the universe that only voting machines not vote counting machines are susceptible to abuse there is nothing to worry about at all.
In the end the result is exactly the same in terms of how valid the vote is but without all the wasted time in feeding the votes into the vote counting machine.
The big bang as other have said only says that at some point the universe exploded forth from a single small immensely dense and hot thing. Thats all it claims to say essentially but it does so in excruciating methametical detail with evidence from observations and models supporting it. It is irrelevant who that small dense thing came into being, it could have been god or a drunk frat student sneezing in another universe (really weird universe where sneezing pops new universes into existence). Since we by many account cannot know how that initial point came into being it is irrelevant.
As for your second explanation? How did god create the universe? When did he do it? What state did he do it in? Had he further influenced it? If so are these influences predictable or verifiable? Well? I'm waiting.
For example, "Enter the amount of the check" became "How much is the check for?" Almost all were very receptive -- only the "older" employees (those who have more seniority) were put off by the changes. ...you're trying to connect the fact that older people do not like change to seniority? Are you high or something or do you just not understand the concept of aging and how it effects people?
This paper was worthwhile in that it now has me considering formal vs colloquial language in the computing domain as yet another form of class distinction, and what that might mean. Formal language is used because it is easier to understand what is being discussed. That's the point of language, to get a point across. If you're talking to your friend bob it may not matter if he mean a gray cat or a gray tiger. If its a zoo trying to procure animals it sure as hell would matter.
If language is just another distinction to "keep the classes down", it'll be that much harder for "them" to climb up if we don't encourage them to use "our" language in their jobs, all under the guise of "ease of use". Or god forbid it actually is easier to understand someone when their sentences don't resemble a dead chicken run through a blender.
Anyone have an actual link to the trailer? The official website is a downright abomination. I have no fuckign idea if the content is loading or if the thing froze or even if I've clicked on the right freaking button.
1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power. You mean fail to fight them, increase their recruitment numbers, spread anti-American feeling, provide free propaganda for terrorist groups, attack a country that had little to do with terrorism, help spread fundamentalist islam into another nation and in general help them out? This isn't even counting all the fun training and money we gave them in the past. Since of course all those groups we're paying in the middle east to fight for us will never ever turn on us in 20 years, after all Saddam has remained a faithful ally of the... oh wait a second.
You fight terrorism by not talking about it, not publicizing it and not giving it credibility. It's in the end a propaganda war where you you're never supposed to directly rebut the opponents points as then you not only give credibility to his points but also are then forced to play on their field where you likely can't win.
The US isn't fighting back, it's cowering in fear and playing the game that the terrorists want it to play.
Of course there are many many thousands of workers unemployed here in the US, dumped by their companies when they hit 30 and wouldn't work 80 hour weeks anymore. And yet we need H1-B for something, wonder what that could be? Wait so they did work for 80 hours for a decade then expected their working conditions to magically change? Actually what sort of moron works for a company that is know for high turn overs and long hours in the first place?
I guess we need H1-B workers because Americans are too dumb to do jobs as your example seems to plainly indicate.
Like the other poster I'm utterly confused by your statement. So you'd hire a guy who works twice as long a project and produces something of half the quality instead of a guy who produced twice the quality in half the time, why exactly? I mean does your company get profits based on how many hours your workers physically sign in or something?
Larger companies tend to get you stuck in a singular or very small set of roles. Small companies tend to give you a wide variety of job duties, albeit with longer hours. So you want to hire the guy who barely managed to learn the basics of one field to work in multiple fields compared to the buy who could easily work in multiple fields?
Joy you're probably like a company I knew. A person there spends 5+ hours a week copying data into a web form from some data set. They were utterly confused by my suggestion to just write a script that will put the data into the web form automatically. I mean are you afraid of hiring people who can think for themselves because they'd realize how shitty the working conditions or the company itself are?
To me, hiring IT people at a steady but slow rate at a mid-size company, a very high GPA says you're brilliant, but all others from 3.5 on down basically all signify "not brilliant", which is fine. A high GPA indicates one of two things imho: a) The person is a hard worker and capable of the inane dedication needed to get high grades in his classes such as essentially living in TA sessions. b) The person took easy classes and knows little about the subject.
Now a brilliant person may get a high GPA or instead spend their time on more useful projects or take classes so hard they don't get As (despite being brilliant). Or they may just think the whole process needed to get high grades is pointless and instead play video games.
I've known people who were brilliant, geniuses even, but had almost abysmal GPAs. I've also known people who while intelligent and hard working were not geniuses but had very high GPAs.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is because it's not real money. It's magic'd money. Actually its because in many cases its the merchant not the bank that is liable for fraudulent transactions. So they literary lose nothing from fraud in monetary terms and possibly even make money from fraud.
They don't create any money in this way at all, they simply move it about. When you put your money into a bank the whole point is that the bank is free to do whatever they want with the money. They never claim that they will hold it in their vault or some such. The great depression was partially caused by that very fact, everyone wanted their money out of the banks and the banks couldn't give it to them since they no longer had it.
They could skip right past fossil fuels and discover biodiesel, fuel cells, solar cells and other modern forms of energy.
Then one of them realizes that all that oil in the ground can be removed and used for much less than any other source of energy, especially those inefficient batteries. They promptly invent a gasoline engine, make an army and take over the world. Likely the airplane alone that they'd be able to make as a result of their gas engines would let them come out way ahead.
No, I'm claiming nothing at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I specifically said nothing about what I think of this law or what category it falls into. I was commenting on the argument used by the original poster not on the validity of the argument's conclusion.
I replied to someone who claimed that this law is not a nanny state law because it may (or rather is designed/supposed to) prevent something bad from happening (fraud). I simply claimed that by that definition all my examples are also not nanny state laws since they too may (or rather are claimed to) prevent something bad from happening (and I listed exactly what each claims to prevent).
In other words I claim that if you like the original poster believe that X is true because it has property Z then imho logically you must also believe that Y is true as it also has property Z. Most people simply wouldn't find Y to be true thus the contradiction.
If you justify something as not being a nanny state law or as being a good law even simply because it prevents something bad from happening (in some cases, when idiots are involved, when reality ceases to exist, in the words of the law proponents or in any such way) then all of those are either not nanny state laws or good laws.
Oh then what is a nanny state, let's see now by your logic none of these are bad as they perform a social good:
-Banning smoking is there to keep people from being subjected to a dangerous substance
-Same for banning junk food.
-Same for banning any violent media, for psychological reasons to prevent people from becoming murderers.
-Banning term such as master/slaveon hard drives is there to prevent social discrimination, unconsciously, of certain groups or causing said group to be subjected to mental anguish.
-Cutting down of mature chestnut trees as it keeps children from slipping on fallen nuts.
I doubt you'd want a revolution anyway, the result of it wouldn't be a more democratic system but rather a directorship (in actuality if not in name at first). That is the only possible form of revolution remaining now, a takeover by a small group or a single person largely ignoring the masses themselves (save for token support such as riots or such).
I was simply pointing out that what he said made little sense since Visual C# is hardly a word processor. If he wanted a word processor that did something then he didn't get one in anything but the simplest sense.
What advantages does autism have?
Our genes for example are filled with crap, its simply not worth it to remove it for nature although a general cleanup would improve efficiency. Bacteria that live in unfavorable environments where such efficiency matters more did get rid of the junk in their own dna.
You're the one who said it saves people money so it is you who should provide the numbers to back up your claim.
Who do you think pays for that dentist's services themselves? Let me give you a hint, it's not google. Google is not a health care provider and likely has no desire to deal with the headaches involved (insurance, goverment oversight, lawsuits, etc.). See every google employee likely has a dental plan, with a number of choices of plans from various providers I can only hope. Now google brings to their campus a dentist who accepts one or more of those plans, paying the dentist to come there of course. Google employees then use their dental plan, well those that have that the dentist accepts, to pay for the dentist just as if they had gone to any other dentist in their plan.
So what exactly was your point and how do employees save money again? Does being physically on the google campus somehow magically make any money that goes to that dentist flow more easily through the health care system?
The people who know the software didn't learn it from some magical unknown documentation system but by working on the source. They can't rip out that knowledge and shove it into you, the best they can tell you is to do what they did. Sometimes a few useful resources that aren't obvious exist but usually they don't.
If someone hasn't written up documentation for the source yet then why do you expect them to do so for you? The point of my story -- that evaded you -- was that people casually and incorrectly assume that because the source is open, that it's easy to learn from and modify. It's not. Especially so for something as large as Open Office. I never assumed that, I still wish to kill every single mozilla person who thought that making half assed extension dev. documentation was a good idea. Nonetheless I don't see what you expected from them. Btw, you know what method I eventually settled on? Visual C#
So google not only pays for a dental plan but also for a dentist to come there... in other words they spend MORE than if they just had a dental plan. guess where that money comes from? No, its not the tooth fairy.
Well what the fuck DID you expect to happen? You asked for new features which YOU wanted so they told YOU to code them if you wanted them. The alternative is to get someone else to be interested and willing to code them but not many such people exist, those that do may likely not finish the project. So what did you do? Throw a hissy fit and give up? I've seen people who wanted certain features and saw how much effort they put into getting someone to code them up. Likely you just lack a spine, determination and probably whine too much for anyone to bother listening to you.
I mean, at least you CAN get the features added if you really want them unlike closed software. The alternative is to convince the people writing the software to do it for you, just like proprietary software except likely easier to do.
Of course they would be countable by people by my point is that a full recount would be done, by default, by machines. Now you could test the machine counts with random hand counted samples and so on. However you can do the exact same thing with a fully electronic system that has paper ballots. In either case you'd have a machine in charge of the ballot counting with a hand recount (or count by different companies machine) if discrepancies were found except that in one case you'd waste a lot of time (and money) on intermediate steps. Hand ballots and mass hand recounts on the other hand have tons of counting problems and errors of their own, see Florida for example.
I don't see any system that is better than an open electronic count with medium scale random machine recounts and smaller scale hand recounts for verification. Three levels of verification by three parties and machines from two separate companies. If discrepancies show up (including those against voter counts before the voting which are logged using a third separate system) then a full scale recount is done, machine counting with hand verification once again (unless the machine counting system had problems itself).
Of course to count those votes a machine would need to be used, after all the paper ballots are of high quality and likely designed specifically so a machine can count them. But since we know its a law of the universe that only voting machines not vote counting machines are susceptible to abuse there is nothing to worry about at all.
In the end the result is exactly the same in terms of how valid the vote is but without all the wasted time in feeding the votes into the vote counting machine.
The big bang as other have said only says that at some point the universe exploded forth from a single small immensely dense and hot thing. Thats all it claims to say essentially but it does so in excruciating methametical detail with evidence from observations and models supporting it. It is irrelevant who that small dense thing came into being, it could have been god or a drunk frat student sneezing in another universe (really weird universe where sneezing pops new universes into existence). Since we by many account cannot know how that initial point came into being it is irrelevant.
As for your second explanation? How did god create the universe? When did he do it? What state did he do it in? Had he further influenced it? If so are these influences predictable or verifiable? Well? I'm waiting.
Anyone have an actual link to the trailer? The official website is a downright abomination. I have no fuckign idea if the content is loading or if the thing froze or even if I've clicked on the right freaking button.
You fight terrorism by not talking about it, not publicizing it and not giving it credibility. It's in the end a propaganda war where you you're never supposed to directly rebut the opponents points as then you not only give credibility to his points but also are then forced to play on their field where you likely can't win.
The US isn't fighting back, it's cowering in fear and playing the game that the terrorists want it to play.
I guess we need H1-B workers because Americans are too dumb to do jobs as your example seems to plainly indicate.
Joy you're probably like a company I knew. A person there spends 5+ hours a week copying data into a web form from some data set. They were utterly confused by my suggestion to just write a script that will put the data into the web form automatically. I mean are you afraid of hiring people who can think for themselves because they'd realize how shitty the working conditions or the company itself are?
a) The person is a hard worker and capable of the inane dedication needed to get high grades in his classes such as essentially living in TA sessions.
b) The person took easy classes and knows little about the subject.
Now a brilliant person may get a high GPA or instead spend their time on more useful projects or take classes so hard they don't get As (despite being brilliant). Or they may just think the whole process needed to get high grades is pointless and instead play video games.
I've known people who were brilliant, geniuses even, but had almost abysmal GPAs. I've also known people who while intelligent and hard working were not geniuses but had very high GPAs.