No, it's called Fractional reserve banking. You even got it right in your link, but strangely not in the text.
You deposit $100 into your bank and they led out $900.
That's not how it works. The "fractional reserve" applies to the deposit, not the loan. You deposit $100, they keey $10, and lend out $90. When banks "make" money, they do not actually "print" money, so they're pretty much stuck with lending out less than what they take as deposits.
The way that banks "make" money is by enabling people to still use their deposits for payments. Those $100 that you deposited are not lost to you, you can still wire them to a merchant to make a purchase (so then they become the merchant's deposit). So, where there were only $100 in circulation to begin with, there are now $190.
And the way multiply lending money works is that those $90 that the borrower got will eventually come back to the bank as a deposit (because the borrower buys something from it, and the seller deposits that money). Out of those $90, the bank will be able to lend out $81 more. Adding everything up together, you get 100+90+81+72.9+... = $1000
If they're paying you 2% interest and charging 4.5% interest in their loans, their profit is (roughly) 4.5% * 9 - 2%. So, they're making 38% or so on your deposit.
Even though banks make insane margins, it's not quite as bad. Indeed, the $1000 created from the $100 were not made out of a single deposit, but from multiple deposit transaction, on each of which the bank paid interest. In order to calculate profit, concentrate on a single deposit/loan pair: for the $100 you deposit, the banks gives you $2, the $10 that they keep as a reserve is basically dead weight, and from the $90 they lend out, they get $4 ($90 * 4.5%). So, rather than making $38 on the deal, they only make $2.
Think about it. If your calculation was correct, the bank would still making profit if they paid you 40% interest... which is obviously not true.
This is why banking is so profitable despite the seemingly low rates.
What makes a bank so profitable is the huge amounts they move, not the high percentage that they make on each transaction.
Moreover, from a bank owner's perspective, the money made is compared to his own investment (relatively small), rather than to the total amount (huge) that moves through the system. It's this way that he gets extremely high returns.
Mandate is too strong a word. The Constitution empowers Congress to grant copyrights, or not, as they see fit, subject to a few restrictions, but it neither requires them to do so, nor encourages them.
Not quite "as they see fit". There are 2 important restrictions:
it must be limited in time
it must be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Intellectual property law as it stands today respects neither. Mickey Mouse copyright is perpetual for all practical purposes. DRM stifles the improvement of Science (by restricting what devices may be made). Software patents stifle the innovation in that area.
So Congress did not receive permission to pass these "laws" from the constitution. So any title acquired (or maintained for an excessively long time) by the use of such "laws" is not "legally obtained", which makes the MAFIAA no better than the crooked university staffer.
Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me.
... and now, with the full "naked" body scanners, small children are an asset, not a liability. Indeed, which security worker wants to be labeled as a pedophile...
Sniffing history is basic feature of xhtml/css, price you pay for selectors. a:visited (background-image:"slashdotorg.png")
Why not load a:visited images unconditionally (even when they aren't displayed)? And why allow getComputedStyle on elements whose rendering depends on:visited?
Hrrmmph! Actually, many people consider the Mac's high quality monitor as one of its major selling points. And you want to connect your macbook to a generic monitor?
Stop using that offensive SciF* word. You may think you're just insulting Tom Cruise with it, but in reality you are insulting 10% of humanity. This is neither funny nor insightful.
No laws shall be made nor enforced that restrict trade, in any way, of any good or service that can be offered.
Simple as that... it solves everything, does away with patents and copyrights and allows anyone to work their way from nothing, selling whatever there is demand for.
So then, it will no longer be possible to forbid sale of too powerful weapons, spoiled food, unsafe toys, etc. either. Not good.
that's different. Having money to purchase some capital, that money (presumably) came from production at some point, so assuming value for value, you could say they have contributed the same amount that the capital is "worth".
Couldn't the same reasoning be used by patent trolls. After all, they purchased their patents with their "hard earned money", so they have contributed something to society too...
Now, I will agree that taking a loud talker's cell phone and jamming it up their rectum is probably an over-reaction, but it really depends on the situation.
With nowadays' tiny tiny phones, they might not even notice. Especially when speaking to somebody with a habit of talking out of their ass...
Keep yourself to yourself, do not acknowledge anyone and DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.
Agreed about all the rest (personal space, eating, stinking...), but what's wrong with eye contact? I know, US subway etiquette says "no eye contact with anybody", but seriously, what's the issue? Especially since in an overcrowded subway car, you might wind up making eye contact with lots of people unintentionally, unless you are a foot fetishist.
Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does)
It's actually worse than that... they can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...
Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.
It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!
Re:And we're trusting you because....
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
Some educational institutions can't reveal the existence of students at their school (in the US there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [wikipedia.org] which protects student privacy including divulging whether the person is a student at a particular school).
If that's the case, they wouldn't be able to offer a e-mail service for their students at all, even if hosted on their own server.
Want to test the existence of a given user (student) at the school? Just send him a mail: bounce => student does not exist. No bounce => student does exist.
Or they could, but it would be a hassle for everyone involved (obscure user names. policy to never send out a bounce)
Then you put the public key for the first certificate in the trusted CAs list for the image that you use when you install your OS of choice on new machines.
... with the added advantage that you can then spy on any bank operations (or any other SSL-"protected" webactivity) that your employees might perform during company time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called Fractional-reserve lending
No, it's called Fractional reserve banking. You even got it right in your link, but strangely not in the text.
You deposit $100 into your bank and they led out $900.
That's not how it works. The "fractional reserve" applies to the deposit, not the loan. You deposit $100, they keey $10, and lend out $90. When banks "make" money, they do not actually "print" money, so they're pretty much stuck with lending out less than what they take as deposits.
The way that banks "make" money is by enabling people to still use their deposits for payments. Those $100 that you deposited are not lost to you, you can still wire them to a merchant to make a purchase (so then they become the merchant's deposit). So, where there were only $100 in circulation to begin with, there are now $190.
And the way multiply lending money works is that those $90 that the borrower got will eventually come back to the bank as a deposit (because the borrower buys something from it, and the seller deposits that money). Out of those $90, the bank will be able to lend out $81 more. Adding everything up together, you get 100+90+81+72.9+... = $1000
If they're paying you 2% interest and charging 4.5% interest in their loans, their profit is (roughly) 4.5% * 9 - 2%. So, they're making 38% or so on your deposit.
Even though banks make insane margins, it's not quite as bad. Indeed, the $1000 created from the $100 were not made out of a single deposit, but from multiple deposit transaction, on each of which the bank paid interest. In order to calculate profit, concentrate on a single deposit/loan pair: for the $100 you deposit, the banks gives you $2, the $10 that they keep as a reserve is basically dead weight, and from the $90 they lend out, they get $4 ($90 * 4.5%). So, rather than making $38 on the deal, they only make $2.
Think about it. If your calculation was correct, the bank would still making profit if they paid you 40% interest... which is obviously not true.
This is why banking is so profitable despite the seemingly low rates.
What makes a bank so profitable is the huge amounts they move, not the high percentage that they make on each transaction.
Moreover, from a bank owner's perspective, the money made is compared to his own investment (relatively small), rather than to the total amount (huge) that moves through the system. It's this way that he gets extremely high returns.
Yes. There will be TV cameras in all offices.
... except in the oval office.
Mandate is too strong a word. The Constitution empowers Congress to grant copyrights, or not, as they see fit, subject to a few restrictions, but it neither requires them to do so, nor encourages them.
Not quite "as they see fit". There are 2 important restrictions:
Intellectual property law as it stands today respects neither. Mickey Mouse copyright is perpetual for all practical purposes. DRM stifles the improvement of Science (by restricting what devices may be made). Software patents stifle the innovation in that area.
So Congress did not receive permission to pass these "laws" from the constitution. So any title acquired (or maintained for an excessively long time) by the use of such "laws" is not "legally obtained", which makes the MAFIAA no better than the crooked university staffer.
the gayest metal known to man you mean
... is harder than Uranus.
How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?
Why do you call it shit? It comes from a meteorite, not from Uranus!
Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me.
... and now, with the full "naked" body scanners, small children are an asset, not a liability. Indeed, which security worker wants to be labeled as a pedophile...
Sniffing history is basic feature of xhtml/css, price you pay for selectors. a:visited (background-image:"slashdotorg.png")
Why not load a:visited images unconditionally (even when they aren't displayed)? And why allow getComputedStyle on elements whose rendering depends on :visited?
the longest discussion in the system is from 2002 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147777 [mozilla.org]).
Actually, an even earlier discussion can be found here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57351. And that one is probably not the oldest one either...
macbook + generic LCD external monitor
Hrrmmph! Actually, many people consider the Mac's high quality monitor as one of its major selling points. And you want to connect your macbook to a generic monitor?
I guess you don't think the same about Homer naked on the upper body.
mmmm... chest hair... mmm :-)
Milner said he downloaded the images to show them to his friend 'because he believed they were funny.'
But now at least Milner knows that his "friend" really isn't...
Stop using that offensive SciF* word. You may think you're just insulting Tom Cruise with it, but in reality you are insulting 10% of humanity. This is neither funny nor insightful.
Can I make an attempt?
No laws shall be made nor enforced that restrict trade, in any way, of any good or service that can be offered.
Simple as that... it solves everything, does away with patents and copyrights and allows anyone to work their way from nothing, selling whatever there is demand for.
So then, it will no longer be possible to forbid sale of too powerful weapons, spoiled food, unsafe toys, etc. either. Not good.
that's different. Having money to purchase some capital, that money (presumably) came from production at some point, so assuming value for value, you could say they have contributed the same amount that the capital is "worth".
Couldn't the same reasoning be used by patent trolls. After all, they purchased their patents with their "hard earned money", so they have contributed something to society too...
Yes you can, BackupPC supports per PC overrides, its great software.
... but you don't tell that to the owners, whom you want to convince to backup!
The core pressure of Uranus is estimated at 8 million bar,
Wow, I better not fart...
So yes, someone is full of shit.
.... keeping all that pressure in :-)
You're just talking out of Uranus, and De Beers is talking out of their's. They've got a business to protect, after all!
You cut in line, and start a fight if someone asks you to go to the back of the line.
Brits cutting in line? In London? What is the world coming to!
Now, I will agree that taking a loud talker's cell phone and jamming it up their rectum is probably an over-reaction, but it really depends on the situation.
With nowadays' tiny tiny phones, they might not even notice. Especially when speaking to somebody with a habit of talking out of their ass...
Keep yourself to yourself, do not acknowledge anyone and DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.
Agreed about all the rest (personal space, eating, stinking...), but what's wrong with eye contact? I know, US subway etiquette says "no eye contact with anybody", but seriously, what's the issue? Especially since in an overcrowded subway car, you might wind up making eye contact with lots of people unintentionally, unless you are a foot fetishist.
Well, they are higher up, but they sure are bigger!
... I am currently in a Sauna, who refuse to put anything but Internet Exploder on their PCs....
Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does)
It's actually worse than that... they can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...
Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.
It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!
Some educational institutions can't reveal the existence of students at their school (in the US there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [wikipedia.org] which protects student privacy including divulging whether the person is a student at a particular school).
If that's the case, they wouldn't be able to offer a e-mail service for their students at all, even if hosted on their own server.
Want to test the existence of a given user (student) at the school? Just send him a mail: bounce => student does not exist. No bounce => student does exist.
Or they could, but it would be a hassle for everyone involved (obscure user names. policy to never send out a bounce)
Then you put the public key for the first certificate in the trusted CAs list for the image that you use when you install your OS of choice on new machines.
... with the added advantage that you can then spy on any bank operations (or any other SSL-"protected" webactivity) that your employees might perform during company time.