The world needs people to step back from the brink now. A lot of the antagonism directed at the US - and thus the base for acts of terrorism - comes from people who don't like its arrogant, aggressive and profit-based foreign policy. Sure, you can combat that by conventional, military means... but that just exacerbates the problem.
A globally acknowledged commitment to peace and diplomacy might give a few hotheads a brief opportunity, but it is necessary in the long run.
Surely anyone can see that.
Unless you just want to keep bombing until there's no 'enemies' left to bomb. Do you own a gun, by any chance?
Yes, right, that makes absolute sense because no-one ever starts out locked into a bad financial situation. No responsible person ever makes mistakes, or has significant interaction with any part of the economy that might get into trouble. No-one responsible ever gets a job in a company that might ever get into problems.
You are under the profound illusion that babies in Africa won't starve if only they had more gumption.
I should add that this effectively makes confidence-based financing something like a catalyst/feedback factor. It can grease the wheels of growth and even allow for change that would be effectively impossible without it, but it can easily wobble around its 'ideal' value, and these wobbles can spiral out of control and take the whole system onto a whole new basis of attraction. (Usually a bad one...)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is an interesting subject so I'd like to know better, but this is the way I see it:
Money only creates 'wealth' when it's in circulation. At any one time, there's a finite amount of goods and services available to be purchased. If everyone magically and suddenly had twice as much money, they have no more purchasing power as suppliers simply double their prices. But if money is injected non-homogenously, then suppliers simply see an increased demand as a few more people are willing to purchase a few more things. That money then has a real effect, and can grow the economy as it gets passed around and raises confidence. But it is all about confidence - as soon as the value of the money is doubted, this idea passes through the economy quicker than the money itself and either the money devalues or the circulation slows as people are unwilling or unable to spend it.
The only way the money can actually generate new wealth is if the small-scale injections can allow some kind of state-change; a technological innovation or creation of capital as security. If that doesn't happen, then the interest on the loan means that whoever took it out is worse off. I suppose you could argue that perhaps this is inevitable and even necessary for some, as it still provides the banks with money to lend to others whose tangible improvement might make up for it.
Similarly, I've heard an argument that bust periods like we're in now can actually be beneficial to the economy; the people who suffer have laid down some kind of infrastructure that can be picked up cheaply by the next generation of investors, and that some things can only be gotten via this unknowingly sacrificial entrepreneurship.
Apologies for rambling, but I was making all that up as I went along....
Well, I know another man whose opinion is that you don't know what you're talking about and base your objections on an aesthetic inability to really contemplate non-classical phenomena.
Bwah! I'm involved in Systems Biology (www.en.wikipedia.org/systems_biology), which is essentially a mixture of top-down and bottom-up biological approaches. So maybe what we're going to be looking at in about 20 years is a lot of funding going to a lovely new field called Systems Intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all just a lot of red-tape bullcrap though, don't you think?
Whatever it is you've been reading, you've been reading too much of it.
Or how about Ainsley Harriot?
OK, no.
But, seriously:
Jeremy Paxman
Desmond Morris
- for the serious presence
Bill Bailey
- for the comedy
Bruce Campbell
- for the sheer awesomeness
Chris Morris
- for my favourite of the lot
The world needs people to step back from the brink now. A lot of the antagonism directed at the US - and thus the base for acts of terrorism - comes from people who don't like its arrogant, aggressive and profit-based foreign policy. Sure, you can combat that by conventional, military means... but that just exacerbates the problem.
A globally acknowledged commitment to peace and diplomacy might give a few hotheads a brief opportunity, but it is necessary in the long run.
Surely anyone can see that.
Unless you just want to keep bombing until there's no 'enemies' left to bomb. Do you own a gun, by any chance?
We can't leave until they say 'uncle.'
It's in the rules.
Don't tell me you've never eaten cake before, you dirty boy
Or else they'll just have to get over it. And you won't like them when they get over it.
Or at least the votes of the citizens who were voting for the right party.
Who modded this guy down? He's right. We shouldn't be calling Texas the idiot state. That's just not right.
_Florida_ is the idiot state. Florida.
Yes, right, that makes absolute sense because no-one ever starts out locked into a bad financial situation. No responsible person ever makes mistakes, or has significant interaction with any part of the economy that might get into trouble. No-one responsible ever gets a job in a company that might ever get into problems.
You are under the profound illusion that babies in Africa won't starve if only they had more gumption.
And that should be 'basin' of attraction. Some day I'll actually read something I preview.
I should add that this effectively makes confidence-based financing something like a catalyst/feedback factor. It can grease the wheels of growth and even allow for change that would be effectively impossible without it, but it can easily wobble around its 'ideal' value, and these wobbles can spiral out of control and take the whole system onto a whole new basis of attraction. (Usually a bad one...)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is an interesting subject so I'd like to know better, but this is the way I see it:
Money only creates 'wealth' when it's in circulation. At any one time, there's a finite amount of goods and services available to be purchased. If everyone magically and suddenly had twice as much money, they have no more purchasing power as suppliers simply double their prices. But if money is injected non-homogenously, then suppliers simply see an increased demand as a few more people are willing to purchase a few more things. That money then has a real effect, and can grow the economy as it gets passed around and raises confidence. But it is all about confidence - as soon as the value of the money is doubted, this idea passes through the economy quicker than the money itself and either the money devalues or the circulation slows as people are unwilling or unable to spend it.
The only way the money can actually generate new wealth is if the small-scale injections can allow some kind of state-change; a technological innovation or creation of capital as security. If that doesn't happen, then the interest on the loan means that whoever took it out is worse off. I suppose you could argue that perhaps this is inevitable and even necessary for some, as it still provides the banks with money to lend to others whose tangible improvement might make up for it.
Similarly, I've heard an argument that bust periods like we're in now can actually be beneficial to the economy; the people who suffer have laid down some kind of infrastructure that can be picked up cheaply by the next generation of investors, and that some things can only be gotten via this unknowingly sacrificial entrepreneurship.
Apologies for rambling, but I was making all that up as I went along....
[...] his obsession with finding wrongs in videogames has ruined his life.
Well, he can always get a job beta-testing.
In that case, can't the standard Ubuntu distro be renamed 'Unchristian Edition'? I wouldn't mind having that on my laptop....
They've been around for a while now though; shouldn't they be at least Middle-Aged Earth creationists by now?
You should have a word with the cold fusion boys!
It usually is
And time is cubic!
For those who don't know but can't be bothered*, http://www.sca.org/ (The Society for Creative Anachronism).
* ... so why do I care? Bloody sod you! Ignore this post!
Somehow I'm thinking the intersection of flat-earthers and creationists contains a lot of the flat-earthers.
Reality has a well-known round-earth bias.
I've always gone for being 'funny' myself.
I've clearly got to readjust my strategy. Oh, and be less clueless.
One man. And that man would be... oh, right, you.
Well, I know another man whose opinion is that you don't know what you're talking about and base your objections on an aesthetic inability to really contemplate non-classical phenomena.
Bwah! I'm involved in Systems Biology (www.en.wikipedia.org/systems_biology), which is essentially a mixture of top-down and bottom-up biological approaches. So maybe what we're going to be looking at in about 20 years is a lot of funding going to a lovely new field called Systems Intelligence.