I mean, it is just a big rock falling into the sun (and missing).
It could not care less about if he can sustain or not an environment for some life forms. Life forms famous in the galaxy for only being able of either thinking "OMG we are all gonna die" or thinking "These changes do not affect to ME and automagically everything is going to be ok always".
With enough information and the right algorithm they might actually be able to obtain that.
With enough information and the right algorithm I might actually be able to win the lottery each day. Of course the devil lies in the details, how do you get that wonderful algorithm (and know when it applies and when not) and such trustful information (do you know what "the fog of war" means?).
Well, just this time I have RTFA (in fact both) and here is what I get:
1.- Military wants a system that mixes all data and works under every situation and infalibly marks insurgents automatically.
2.- "Shockingly", the system fails to deliver it 100%.
3.- "Oh, my god, if the system does not detect an enemy fighter and he flees then the enemy might strike back at us and might kill one of them! That means that THIS SYSTEM IS KILLING OUR SOLDIERS!".
4.- Cry in the newspaper to make politics look bad, so they buy something else.
5.- Someone PROFITs....
Frankly, from reading the articles one would think that they military are all day looking at a computer waiting for a "Kill" command to appear, while not taking care of what is happening around them. I do not find this new to be very balanced, and some people's claims of slashvertising seem to be very pausible. I mean, the guy who wrote that could also have written that every dead soldier is God's fault because God failed to kill all the insurgents with lightning...
Also, blocking the light means less light available for crop harvesting and carbon capturing by forests.
Using a solution like that (or space shades or cloud seeding that have been proposed elsewhere) means moving from a system of "let the light it, use it in a profitable way and let out the excess heat" to "do not let light in because we have no way to let out the excess heat".
Maybe people get in the car early in order to leave earlier from work, but as they approach they feel every time more awake and they begin to realize where they are going to, and then they try to get back home to be safe, but when they arrive home they realize there is no other option and it is getting finally to late and they go back to work.
Feeling like that lately...
Anyway, that only accounts to three times the original traffic. I guess some of them go back home a second time.
If car companies were not forced to use an standard set of test to find how safe are they cars, all cars would advertise as "the safest car ever".
And, since being perceived as "the safest car ever" would be a marketing issue and no an engineering one, investment in engineering a safer car would be "a waste".
Just one question.... how am I supposed to vote for a competitor airport with my wallet?
You see, not every city in the world has 3-4 airports nearby to chose from. And even when they have, not all air companies/destinations are available from those destinations.
So basically you are providing a monopoly without any sort of oversight and hoping that, "somehow", the owner of the monopoly won't try to profit from it. If that is the case, I have a bridge to sale that you may be interested in.
I do not know why, but I think you already have in mind some ideas about to which your law would apply and to which it would not. And I am most certain that YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAW, no matter how stupid you or them are. Isn't it?
Obviously, public officials today are not those sixty years ago. Public officials today are impervious to favoritism, corruption, twisting the laws to match their ideas (Note: this is sarcasm).
And even overlooking this, your criteria of elegibility is higly classist. Do you want to go against those unemployed? Then make it equally probable to be unemployed if you are a moron son of a factory worker or a moron son of a CEO. No better study means for the CEO'son, no social contacts with the CEO's buddies, and so on. After you got this, come back to me and we'll talk of your proposal again.
In resume? This proposal only shows your bigotry and how out of contact with reality you are (not that these two things are unrelated).
Having RTFA just once, what I find most disturbing is that pharmacies can sell the information of what doctor is prescribing what drug.
This eases the opportunities for pharma bussiness of going to doctors and telling them "If we receive x prescription of our product from you, we will pay you a % as our agent. And we do not care if the drug is what the patients really needed or not, we only care about units sold."
The rest of the data is mostly harmless (it needs to be linked to medical history to retrieve the name of the patient, and if you have the medical history you probably already have all what you need).
Managers don't require knowledge, they are supposed to manage people that do have the knowledge.
Sometime he will have to meet the developer claiming that the sysadmin policies are too tight and force him to waste time in things that are not really needed, and the sysadmin claiming that the developer can introduce unsafe software in his network.
While I usually side with the workers'rights, assuming that everytime a worker is pissed it was intentional from the management (worse yet, that since the worker was hired management had the intention to piss him/her) is a little excessive.
Pissed workers can be due to:
different perception: the worker thinks he is the eight wonder of the world, the boss thinks that the worker is not good enough.
relationship issues: the worker is not at ease with the people at work.
personal issues: sometimes someone who has trouble at home has no patience at work.
need issues: everything is ok, but the enterprise decides to fire the guy because he is no longer needed/job cuts.
Of course, there is also the situations in which the guy is pissed because his boss does not treat him fairly.
My point is that being pissed is highly subjective; depending on a guy not sabotaging you only because he is not pissed does not sound like a good plan because you cannot control all the causes of the situation. So, it is only logical that you want to hire someone who is more stable.
First, to your post: Even a child knows that if the bank loans him 100$ at 7%, putting it in another bank at 1% is not a good idea. What he does is to use it (paying workers, tools, stock) in a way that allows him to get more than that 7%. This is how HE gets to repay the loan.
Now that money is not in his hands but at his workers' and providers'hands. They waste some, and put some in the bank. And yes, it means the bank can loan yet more money. And if someone wants another loan, he does exactly the same: get the money and put it to use in a way that is more productive than the interests on that money.
Yes, the money availability is increased, but this is not by itself bad thing, as it forces banks to give cheaper loans. If money becomes too cheap and inflation rises too much, then central banks/governments just say that the ratio has changed and now bank can only give 70$ of loans for every 10$ in deposits.
In fact, the "old way" of managing this is way worse (if you need more money circulating it takes time and it is expensive to print batches of notes), putting money away from circulation is also more difficult.
Ah! and inflation (if moderate) is a good thing. If you have money available and its value keeps stable or even increases (deflation) by doing nothing, you have little incentive to put it to work. If it is slowly losing value, then you'll better get something out for it (let it be for yourself or investing in bonds or stock).
My grandfather told me too those stories where you could have a big afternoon spending only to what now amounts to chump change. But I would not swap my times with his.
Part of what gives fiat money its value is that it is controlled by governments that are expected to control its production. In fact, to avoid direct politic intervention (*) they outsource it to central banks. Use as currency something that can be mass produced by anyone and it will lose its value (try to buy something in the international market using Zimbabwe Dollars. Later, try it with Yuan, Yen, Euro or US Dollars).
About utility: I have never had to fire a weapon, for defense or food. With your proposal, I would need to store at home thousands of dangerous, useless bullets in my house. Also, about fractioning. If I need the most basic unit (one bullet) to buy, say, bubble-gum... how many kilograms of bullets I will have to carry if I want to dinner at a fancy restaurant.
(*)IMHO the independence of central banks should end, it only serves to put in charge friends of the big bussiness who does not even have to risk his position in some election. At least with an elected official he has something in line.
I understand it, you should improve you reading comprehension as you have repeated my points, while falling short in the conclussions.
If I am a bank with 10$ in deposits and I can lend 100$. If I lend you 100$, I can not lend anything else unless I get more deposits or you repay me. When you repay me the 100$, I can loan them again to someone else.
What backs the dollar is the faith that the 14 trillion dollars will some day pay the 55 trillion dollars off.
Actually, what backs the dollar in the US is that the only legal tender for payment of taxes is USD, and if you don't pay your taxes you eventually wind up in jail.
That explains why Joe the plumber from Missouri wants to be paid in dollars, not why Shigario Nikofume in Japan or Abdul Mussein in Arabia accept dollars when they ship electronics or oil to USA.
Now I absolutely would take your point as it applies to the ~5% physical cash, because it's physical and a credit entry is created when it is deposited in the bank meaning that credit entry is destroyed when the debt is paid... But the 95% of money which is made up of credit itself is purely a book keeping entry not physical cash and that absolutely does vanish when debts are paid
Since a % of these credits must be backed by real assets, there is an effective limit to the money in circulation (even if that limit is way higher than paper currency).
Repaying the debt allows the credit to loan that money again.
Where did you think all the crashes and busts came from?
The crashes and busts come from the creditors believing that the risk in loaning does not offset possible benefits, so the do not give credit. This is one of the reasons why deflation is bad (the creditor gets richer just by holding his money).
Re:Bitcoin to revolutionise economy
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The Bitcoin system is robustly designed to continue past the collapse of the US dollar and the world economy, as the Internet, fast computers and reliable electricity are all expected to be readily available when barbarian hordes are wandering the burnt-out post-apocalyptic remnants of civilisation.
I think that you have missed the Fallout series of historic documentals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, anthromorphizing the planet is a bad thing.
I mean, it is just a big rock falling into the sun (and missing).
It could not care less about if he can sustain or not an environment for some life forms. Life forms famous in the galaxy for only being able of either thinking "OMG we are all gonna die" or thinking "These changes do not affect to ME and automagically everything is going to be ok always".
With enough information and the right algorithm they might actually be able to obtain that.
With enough information and the right algorithm I might actually be able to win the lottery each day. Of course the devil lies in the details, how do you get that wonderful algorithm (and know when it applies and when not) and such trustful information (do you know what "the fog of war" means?).
Well, just this time I have RTFA (in fact both) and here is what I get:
1.- Military wants a system that mixes all data and works under every situation and infalibly marks insurgents automatically.
2.- "Shockingly", the system fails to deliver it 100%.
3.- "Oh, my god, if the system does not detect an enemy fighter and he flees then the enemy might strike back at us and might kill one of them! That means that THIS SYSTEM IS KILLING OUR SOLDIERS!".
4.- Cry in the newspaper to make politics look bad, so they buy something else.
5.- Someone PROFITs....
Frankly, from reading the articles one would think that they military are all day looking at a computer waiting for a "Kill" command to appear, while not taking care of what is happening around them. I do not find this new to be very balanced, and some people's claims of slashvertising seem to be very pausible. I mean, the guy who wrote that could also have written that every dead soldier is God's fault because God failed to kill all the insurgents with lightning...
And which moron are you? The one that suggest that truth cannot be learnt because everyone is lying because of their obscure interests?
You missed that one...
These 'scientists' really make me laugh...
Because they are all the time revising their models and theories in order to make them more acurate? What a stupid thing for a scientist to do!
Anyway, I have some snake oil to sell you for your headaches... you know, your grand-grandfather used it, so it is sure it works!
Also, blocking the light means less light available for crop harvesting and carbon capturing by forests.
Using a solution like that (or space shades or cloud seeding that have been proposed elsewhere) means moving from a system of "let the light it, use it in a profitable way and let out the excess heat" to "do not let light in because we have no way to let out the excess heat".
Maybe people get in the car early in order to leave earlier from work, but as they approach they feel every time more awake and they begin to realize where they are going to, and then they try to get back home to be safe, but when they arrive home they realize there is no other option and it is getting finally to late and they go back to work.
Feeling like that lately...
Anyway, that only accounts to three times the original traffic. I guess some of them go back home a second time.
If car companies were not forced to use an standard set of test to find how safe are they cars, all cars would advertise as "the safest car ever".
And, since being perceived as "the safest car ever" would be a marketing issue and no an engineering one, investment in engineering a safer car would be "a waste".
Just one question.... how am I supposed to vote for a competitor airport with my wallet?
You see, not every city in the world has 3-4 airports nearby to chose from. And even when they have, not all air companies/destinations are available from those destinations.
So basically you are providing a monopoly without any sort of oversight and hoping that, "somehow", the owner of the monopoly won't try to profit from it. If that is the case, I have a bridge to sale that you may be interested in.
I got it.
Double left click, right click, left click, triple right click, A, A, B, A, Up, Up, Up and I can see almost see slashdot as any other forum!
It is not that unusual.
If Amazon was operation from Mexico, Canada or the EU... would you find equally injustified forcing them to pay the tariffs everyone else is paying?
wow.. you really got us righties there... except for the fact that the laws you leftys just past, just put 25K affiliates out of business.
No. It was Amazon who did that, trying to force the hand of a democratically elected government. Please do not shift the blame.
What is scary is how so many people's IQ seems to drop to 0 when what they read is not what they want to read.
They are asking Amazon to collect California taxes from California buyers. Nothing to do with your FUD.
Two words: Hollywood accounting
I do not know why, but I think you already have in mind some ideas about to which your law would apply and to which it would not. And I am most certain that YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAW, no matter how stupid you or them are. Isn't it?
Obviously, public officials today are not those sixty years ago. Public officials today are impervious to favoritism, corruption, twisting the laws to match their ideas (Note: this is sarcasm).
And even overlooking this, your criteria of elegibility is higly classist. Do you want to go against those unemployed? Then make it equally probable to be unemployed if you are a moron son of a factory worker or a moron son of a CEO. No better study means for the CEO'son, no social contacts with the CEO's buddies, and so on. After you got this, come back to me and we'll talk of your proposal again.
In resume? This proposal only shows your bigotry and how out of contact with reality you are (not that these two things are unrelated).
Way to go, Hitler.
Having RTFA just once, what I find most disturbing is that pharmacies can sell the information of what doctor is prescribing what drug.
This eases the opportunities for pharma bussiness of going to doctors and telling them "If we receive x prescription of our product from you, we will pay you a % as our agent. And we do not care if the drug is what the patients really needed or not, we only care about units sold."
The rest of the data is mostly harmless (it needs to be linked to medical history to retrieve the name of the patient, and if you have the medical history you probably already have all what you need).
Managers don't require knowledge, they are supposed to manage people that do have the knowledge.
Sometime he will have to meet the developer claiming that the sysadmin policies are too tight and force him to waste time in things that are not really needed, and the sysadmin claiming that the developer can introduce unsafe software in his network.
And he will have to take the decission.
He could have been fired with reason (for example, for failing to keep properly secured the network) and still be pissed and sabotage the CEO.
Without more data, assuming that what we did was "just retribution" seems unfounded.
While I usually side with the workers'rights, assuming that everytime a worker is pissed it was intentional from the management (worse yet, that since the worker was hired management had the intention to piss him/her) is a little excessive.
Pissed workers can be due to:
Of course, there is also the situations in which the guy is pissed because his boss does not treat him fairly.
My point is that being pissed is highly subjective; depending on a guy not sabotaging you only because he is not pissed does not sound like a good plan because you cannot control all the causes of the situation. So, it is only logical that you want to hire someone who is more stable.
AND THEN WE ALL ARE GONNA DIE!!! WTF, man, relax.
First, to your post: Even a child knows that if the bank loans him 100$ at 7%, putting it in another bank at 1% is not a good idea. What he does is to use it (paying workers, tools, stock) in a way that allows him to get more than that 7%. This is how HE gets to repay the loan.
Now that money is not in his hands but at his workers' and providers'hands. They waste some, and put some in the bank. And yes, it means the bank can loan yet more money. And if someone wants another loan, he does exactly the same: get the money and put it to use in a way that is more productive than the interests on that money.
Yes, the money availability is increased, but this is not by itself bad thing, as it forces banks to give cheaper loans. If money becomes too cheap and inflation rises too much, then central banks/governments just say that the ratio has changed and now bank can only give 70$ of loans for every 10$ in deposits.
In fact, the "old way" of managing this is way worse (if you need more money circulating it takes time and it is expensive to print batches of notes), putting money away from circulation is also more difficult.
Ah! and inflation (if moderate) is a good thing. If you have money available and its value keeps stable or even increases (deflation) by doing nothing, you have little incentive to put it to work. If it is slowly losing value, then you'll better get something out for it (let it be for yourself or investing in bonds or stock).
My grandfather told me too those stories where you could have a big afternoon spending only to what now amounts to chump change. But I would not swap my times with his.
Ummm... no.
Part of what gives fiat money its value is that it is controlled by governments that are expected to control its production. In fact, to avoid direct politic intervention (*) they outsource it to central banks. Use as currency something that can be mass produced by anyone and it will lose its value (try to buy something in the international market using Zimbabwe Dollars. Later, try it with Yuan, Yen, Euro or US Dollars).
About utility: I have never had to fire a weapon, for defense or food. With your proposal, I would need to store at home thousands of dangerous, useless bullets in my house. Also, about fractioning. If I need the most basic unit (one bullet) to buy, say, bubble-gum... how many kilograms of bullets I will have to carry if I want to dinner at a fancy restaurant.
(*)IMHO the independence of central banks should end, it only serves to put in charge friends of the big bussiness who does not even have to risk his position in some election. At least with an elected official he has something in line.
I understand it, you should improve you reading comprehension as you have repeated my points, while falling short in the conclussions.
If I am a bank with 10$ in deposits and I can lend 100$. If I lend you 100$, I can not lend anything else unless I get more deposits or you repay me. When you repay me the 100$, I can loan them again to someone else.
Actually, what backs the dollar in the US is that the only legal tender for payment of taxes is USD, and if you don't pay your taxes you eventually wind up in jail.
That explains why Joe the plumber from Missouri wants to be paid in dollars, not why Shigario Nikofume in Japan or Abdul Mussein in Arabia accept dollars when they ship electronics or oil to USA.
Since a % of these credits must be backed by real assets, there is an effective limit to the money in circulation (even if that limit is way higher than paper currency).
Repaying the debt allows the credit to loan that money again.
The crashes and busts come from the creditors believing that the risk in loaning does not offset possible benefits, so the do not give credit. This is one of the reasons why deflation is bad (the creditor gets richer just by holding his money).
The Bitcoin system is robustly designed to continue past the collapse of the US dollar and the world economy, as the Internet, fast computers and reliable electricity are all expected to be readily available when barbarian hordes are wandering the burnt-out post-apocalyptic remnants of civilisation.
I think that you have missed the Fallout series of historic documentals.