Technically, SS doesn't put the government in charge of your retirement; it just makes the government your sugar daddy once you pass a certain age. (And, of course, take a pimp's share of your earnings while you're working.)
So, not enough time to do it right the first time, but plenty of time to do it a second time when the bugs make it unusuable? (Yes I understand this is more of a management issue, where they don't factor in that second time into their estimates.)
I didn't say that anyone should give up subsidies while having to compete with those who are subsidized. I said the subsidies should end so that all of the welfare babies can go do something worthwhile for once in their lives. (Or better, *don't* compete, since there's overproduction in that area already, get a real job, and join the cause of ending favoritism in government, like an honorable human being.)
I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
Right, you said that because you have some buds (i.e., anecdotal evidence), that somehow refutes the hard facts about how much actually goes toward family farmers versus large corporations. You're not bright enough to see how that's irrelevant either.
I (correctly) assumed that your invocation of your buds meant that your views were distorted and corrupted on this issue because of how you like some of the people that are getting this welfare. And lo and behold, look how you prove it! You even think you're noble for only supporting *some* looting of taxpayers for farm welfare. Don't hurt your wrist patting yourself on the back so hard!
Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them. Even if there's more to it than that, you're still ultimately advocating socially-unproductive welfare payments to farmers who can do fine on their own -- and would do something *useful* if they weren't hooking up with Uncle Sugar Daddy.
The subsidies need to end. Completely. As long as you disagree, my arguments were quite responsive to your position. (I use the term "position" here loosely of course. It's actually giving you too much credit. "Gimme free stuff" is just naked sociopathic greed with only a pretense at being some kind of respectable, self-consistent "position".)
WTF? 4, insightful? Anecdote trumps aggregate numbers? And so what if you've got some great buds receiving being funneled cash from Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam? I supposed to ignore the 90+% of ag subsidies not even going to family farmers, just to avoid hurting your friends' feelings?
They can go fuck themselves. They can get go get a job doing something that doesn't require naked extortion from taxpayers. You know, like non-sociopaths.
Sure, but you're not being given an arbitrarily large input size; it's something like 8 input/8 output at most. The traveling salseman problem isn't horrendously intractable if you only have e.g. 10 cities.
Why did it take so long to find a shorter boolean expression? Aren't there programs that take in a truth table and churn through all the expressions that can generate it? And isn't the S-box I/O size pretty small to begin with?
"Anyone who 'designs' a bridge based on algorithms, public demand, and what a computer tells them will be 'desirable to drive on', needs to be deposited in the bottom of the ocean."
Aww! Poor things! While we're bitching about shit the rest of us got over a long time ago, I think it's un*fair* how my one-man operation can't compete with the big, well-capitalized players in the field of semiconductor manufacture!
Businesses invest. In better tech. That makes it harder for you to compete using the tech of decades (or millenia) ago. Normal people adapt. Farmer bitch and moan, and then manage to get subsidies, even for not growing crops.
Wow, you're tough. A state imposes a tax, that tax *directly causes* a decrease in business activity, because part of a venture was no longer profitable, and you're still dismissing out of hand the very idea that imposing taxes can have a net effect of reducing economic activity, even as an instance of that very phenomenon happens right under your goddamn nose???
Yeah, good point, every single business, which actually has to earn a profit rather than spit out cheap talk, and which has extensively analyzed court precedent and consulted with lawyers, is just being completely stupid and enjoys having to water down real warnings with tons fake ones.
It's can't possibly have anything to do with the non-trivial risk of dumb-shit juries, charming lawyers, or a court system that tolerates them. It's good we have you around to save everyone the problem of actually *looking* at the real world.
Yep. Anyone with mod points to spare, I recommend you just go through "Attila Dimedici's" posting history and downmod anything that remotely justifies it. I did.
So, your view is that the current BTC is "flying", and therefore I should offer no constructive input for BTC 2.0?
No, offer all the constructive advice you want for an open source currency project. Another currency project, even one cryptographically modeled off Bitcoin. Just don't pimp the idea of fucking over the people using the currently *existing* Bitcoin by retroactively increasing the ultimate supply, which your post came dangerous close to legitmizing. (and that remains true even if you didn't explicitly advocate that -- the problem is that complaints such as yours have the subtext of encouraging inflation of the existing bitcoin)
And I never said fixed-expansion-curve currencies were bad.
Good thing I never accused you of such, then!
Btw, I have an idea to help you out on your endeavor, apprpriate for your moral character: when you introduce Bitcoin's twin brother, promote it as something with the same growth curve as Bitcoin 1.0, or least one whose growth asymptotically terminates. THEN, once all the suckers start using it, fuck them up the ass by converting it to an expansionary currency -- you know, just to "stabilize" the market and provide "liquidity". Morons'll never see it coming when their coins get inflated away!
Great, man, great! Like I said, live your dream of "stabilizing" the money supply in a way that somehow kills of the volatility of a new currency without breaking your bank (that should be your clue about how the Euro case worked). I wish you the best of fuckin' luck.
Just keep your idea way the fuck away from the current Bitcoin project.
I guess that's the problem: people bitch and moan about how retarded a fixed-amount ("deflationary") currency is. But if you don't like it... uh, just don't use it. We're flying either way.
No, I expected him to say like, "we're developing protocol X that satisfies the criteria A, B, and D that you listed, and have introduced it in this thread [link], hoping to get a critical mass. If you want to help get this system off the ground, you can [...]. But it's still a work in progress."
Instead, all I got was, "Yeah, it's important. And should be like you said. The current system for it... has the shortcomings you already said. It's easy. I'm trying to be as unhelpful as possible."
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, SS doesn't put the government in charge of your retirement; it just makes the government your sugar daddy once you pass a certain age. (And, of course, take a pimp's share of your earnings while you're working.)
Hey! That gives me an idea:
"I'm not breaking up with you. I'm just raising my standards to the point where you no longer qualify."
Hey, now you can have a Bitcoin miner on the go!
apparently copying books by hand builds character and appreciation
Funny coincidence: shortly after I read that, I saw an article in The Atlantic this very month arguing that Handwriting Builds Character.
*facepalm*
So, not enough time to do it right the first time, but plenty of time to do it a second time when the bugs make it unusuable? (Yes I understand this is more of a management issue, where they don't factor in that second time into their estimates.)
I didn't say that anyone should give up subsidies while having to compete with those who are subsidized. I said the subsidies should end so that all of the welfare babies can go do something worthwhile for once in their lives. (Or better, *don't* compete, since there's overproduction in that area already, get a real job, and join the cause of ending favoritism in government, like an honorable human being.)
I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
Right, you said that because you have some buds (i.e., anecdotal evidence), that somehow refutes the hard facts about how much actually goes toward family farmers versus large corporations. You're not bright enough to see how that's irrelevant either.
I (correctly) assumed that your invocation of your buds meant that your views were distorted and corrupted on this issue because of how you like some of the people that are getting this welfare. And lo and behold, look how you prove it! You even think you're noble for only supporting *some* looting of taxpayers for farm welfare. Don't hurt your wrist patting yourself on the back so hard!
Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them. Even if there's more to it than that, you're still ultimately advocating socially-unproductive welfare payments to farmers who can do fine on their own -- and would do something *useful* if they weren't hooking up with Uncle Sugar Daddy.
The subsidies need to end. Completely. As long as you disagree, my arguments were quite responsive to your position. (I use the term "position" here loosely of course. It's actually giving you too much credit. "Gimme free stuff" is just naked sociopathic greed with only a pretense at being some kind of respectable, self-consistent "position".)
WTF? 4, insightful? Anecdote trumps aggregate numbers? And so what if you've got some great buds receiving being funneled cash from Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam? I supposed to ignore the 90+% of ag subsidies not even going to family farmers, just to avoid hurting your friends' feelings?
They can go fuck themselves. They can get go get a job doing something that doesn't require naked extortion from taxpayers. You know, like non-sociopaths.
Sure, but you're not being given an arbitrarily large input size; it's something like 8 input/8 output at most. The traveling salseman problem isn't horrendously intractable if you only have e.g. 10 cities.
Why did it take so long to find a shorter boolean expression? Aren't there programs that take in a truth table and churn through all the expressions that can generate it? And isn't the S-box I/O size pretty small to begin with?
In a previous life, you were the one saying,
"Anyone who 'designs' a bridge based on algorithms, public demand, and what a computer tells them will be 'desirable to drive on', needs to be deposited in the bottom of the ocean."
Aww! Poor things! While we're bitching about shit the rest of us got over a long time ago, I think it's un*fair* how my one-man operation can't compete with the big, well-capitalized players in the field of semiconductor manufacture!
Businesses invest. In better tech. That makes it harder for you to compete using the tech of decades (or millenia) ago. Normal people adapt. Farmer bitch and moan, and then manage to get subsidies, even for not growing crops.
Fuck 'em.
Wow, you're tough. A state imposes a tax, that tax *directly causes* a decrease in business activity, because part of a venture was no longer profitable, and you're still dismissing out of hand the very idea that imposing taxes can have a net effect of reducing economic activity, even as an instance of that very phenomenon happens right under your goddamn nose???
Amen, brother! (in the secular sense)
This case is yet another example why yet another sector of the economy can't adapt to new realities and increase its efficiency.
Too bad the ol' Ag has gotten really expensive recently, "despite" the recession and all the all the stimulus.
And yet, some dumbfuck modded me down for pointing this out.
The "walking trucks" (AT-ATs) didn't appear until Empire Strikes Back, right?
The "stealthocopters" used in the bin Laden mission are way ahead of you!
Yeah, good point, every single business, which actually has to earn a profit rather than spit out cheap talk, and which has extensively analyzed court precedent and consulted with lawyers, is just being completely stupid and enjoys having to water down real warnings with tons fake ones.
It's can't possibly have anything to do with the non-trivial risk of dumb-shit juries, charming lawyers, or a court system that tolerates them. It's good we have you around to save everyone the problem of actually *looking* at the real world.
*jerk-off gesture*
Yep. Anyone with mod points to spare, I recommend you just go through "Attila Dimedici's" posting history and downmod anything that remotely justifies it. I did.
So, your view is that the current BTC is "flying", and therefore I should offer no constructive input for BTC 2.0?
No, offer all the constructive advice you want for an open source currency project. Another currency project, even one cryptographically modeled off Bitcoin. Just don't pimp the idea of fucking over the people using the currently *existing* Bitcoin by retroactively increasing the ultimate supply, which your post came dangerous close to legitmizing. (and that remains true even if you didn't explicitly advocate that -- the problem is that complaints such as yours have the subtext of encouraging inflation of the existing bitcoin)
And I never said fixed-expansion-curve currencies were bad.
Good thing I never accused you of such, then!
Btw, I have an idea to help you out on your endeavor, apprpriate for your moral character: when you introduce Bitcoin's twin brother, promote it as something with the same growth curve as Bitcoin 1.0, or least one whose growth asymptotically terminates. THEN, once all the suckers start using it, fuck them up the ass by converting it to an expansionary currency -- you know, just to "stabilize" the market and provide "liquidity". Morons'll never see it coming when their coins get inflated away!
Remarkably short attention span you have for making arguments there.
Great, man, great! Like I said, live your dream of "stabilizing" the money supply in a way that somehow kills of the volatility of a new currency without breaking your bank (that should be your clue about how the Euro case worked). I wish you the best of fuckin' luck.
Just keep your idea way the fuck away from the current Bitcoin project.
I guess that's the problem: people bitch and moan about how retarded a fixed-amount ("deflationary") currency is. But if you don't like it ... uh, just don't use it. We're flying either way.
So, an input-function mapping is patentable. Brilliant. Can I just generate all possible mappings and file a patent on all of them?
No, I expected him to say like, "we're developing protocol X that satisfies the criteria A, B, and D that you listed, and have introduced it in this thread [link], hoping to get a critical mass. If you want to help get this system off the ground, you can [...]. But it's still a work in progress."
Instead, all I got was, "Yeah, it's important. And should be like you said. The current system for it ... has the shortcomings you already said. It's easy. I'm trying to be as unhelpful as possible."