Well, I'm sure it normally takes a new Congress and a new President at least a week to make the changes they want. So, it'll be February 2017 at the earliest before we see any measurable change. (Golly!)
As I've seen Republicans in action before, it'll be a couple of years before we see much change.
It will mostly take the form of additional laws and regulations and spending, becoming conspicuous in 2018 or 2019.
Gridlock is our friend.
Or was. But it will be again, starting in January 2019, if the past is a reliable guide.
More costly than a cemetery plot. And there's more reason to arrange perpetual care, if you're going to do it at all.
So it's a matter of degree, not kind.
Who are we to criticize someone's spending of their own money on a matter of faith, just because it's not faith in a religion? (Well, not a conventional, well-established religion, anyway.)
If I may attempt to restate what: that poster is saying:the exchange's means of matching potential transactors has some kind of serious inherent problem, if it's so fragile that one person could do such terrible damage, as described.
rA related notion: Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
That includes shiny bits of soft metal, for those idiots who want to return to the gold standard.
So, does this mean you wouldn't have a problem in allowing people to transact in such currencies and related currencies? After all, they'd only be hurting themselves, right?
I'm given to understand there were two governments of Virginia: the one recognized by the CSA and one recognized by the USA. Guess which one approved the creation of West Virginia?
In keeping with Slashdot tradition, I will not read the article when I can instead ask a questoin that reading the article would answer. Or should have.
What happened to the price of gold? Silver? Commodities in general?
If they all had the same kinds of moves as bitcoin, yeah, that interpretation makes sense.
If past experience is any guide, they will grow the hell out of the federal government. Divided government is an impediment to government growth.
That's not just from the limited number of sample points provided by US presidents and Congresses, but also from state governors and state legislatures.
Yes, even the supposedly "less government" Republicans, when they control the two elected branches of government, make it bigger than it gets in times of divided government.
For fans of less government, gridlock is your friend..
Of all the things that are wrong with the national government of the US, the Electoral College is not in the top 5. Or 10. Or 20. Assuming it's even an actual problem.
Except for the Third Amendment, every amendment in the Bill of Rights is frequently violated, some routinely.
The Federal Register is incompatible with Article I, Section 1.
We have presidents who take the nation to war without a declaration of war from the Congress, and the Big Issue is that the process for selecting that president is suboptimal/obsolete/inelegant?
If it may have been as much as 6.7 inches/century, that's over 60 inches per millennium. Nearly as much as I am tall! More than the height of an average American woman!
I'm heading for high ground now, before it's too late.
"This will increase demand for people with IT skills who can set up and operate the automation systems -- but at far smaller numbers than the people automation displaces."
When county prosecutors are elected officials, and "good" stats are helpful when seeking re-election or higher office, you can expect more of this sort of thing. It seems to me.
Supposedly, the best way to get a Nobel in Economics is to pick a topic that "isn't economics" or is obvious or is obviously false, or otherwise is a dumb idea.
The only example that comes to mind at the moment is behavioral economics, but this tendency has popped up more than once in the podcasts at http://econtalk.org/ .
If you want to go looking for other examples there, its probably best to skip the podcasts about the economics of pirates, and the manufacturing of potato chips, and of car parts. (Probably.)
Which is why a former employer would let contract workers go for the last couple of months of the year, so it could make its numbers. Then, come January, a lot of those people got brought back. They were really a good choice; they already knew the computer systems they had been working on.
It's not the best possible thing for *actual* shareholder value, but apparently Wall Street doesn't pay much attention to the actual business, just numbers that relate to the actual business, and calls the numbers derived from them "shareholder value".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sure it normally takes a new Congress and a new President at least a week to make the changes they want. So, it'll be February 2017 at the earliest before we see any measurable change. (Golly!)
As I've seen Republicans in action before, it'll be a couple of years before we see much change.
It will mostly take the form of additional laws and regulations and spending, becoming conspicuous in 2018 or 2019.
Gridlock is our friend.
Or was. But it will be again, starting in January 2019, if the past is a reliable guide.
More costly than a cemetery plot. And there's more reason to arrange perpetual care, if you're going to do it at all.
So it's a matter of degree, not kind.
Who are we to criticize someone's spending of their own money on a matter of faith, just because it's not faith in a religion? (Well, not a conventional, well-established religion, anyway.)
An entirely different question.
If I may attempt to restate what: that poster is saying:the exchange's means of matching potential transactors has some kind of serious inherent problem, if it's so fragile that one person could do such terrible damage, as described.
rA related notion: Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
That includes shiny bits of soft metal, for those idiots who want to return to the gold standard.
So, does this mean you wouldn't have a problem in allowing people to transact in such currencies and related currencies? After all, they'd only be hurting themselves, right?
This doesn't sound very Net Neutrality-ish.
Burn it with fire!
Whereas, fake news distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK?
And the missing news not distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK to omit?
I'm going to say "No" and "No", on those two. YMMV.
I'm given to understand there were two governments of Virginia: the one recognized by the CSA and one recognized by the USA. Guess which one approved the creation of West Virginia?
In keeping with Slashdot tradition, I will not read the article when I can instead ask a questoin that reading the article would answer. Or should have.
What happened to the price of gold? Silver? Commodities in general?
If they all had the same kinds of moves as bitcoin, yeah, that interpretation makes sense.
If past experience is any guide, they will grow the hell out of the federal government. Divided government is an impediment to government growth.
That's not just from the limited number of sample points provided by US presidents and Congresses, but also from state governors and state legislatures.
Yes, even the supposedly "less government" Republicans, when they control the two elected branches of government, make it bigger than it gets in times of divided government.
For fans of less government, gridlock is your friend..
Of all the things that are wrong with the national government of the US, the Electoral College is not in the top 5. Or 10. Or 20. Assuming it's even an actual problem.
Except for the Third Amendment, every amendment in the Bill of Rights is frequently violated, some routinely.
The Federal Register is incompatible with Article I, Section 1.
We have presidents who take the nation to war without a declaration of war from the Congress, and the Big Issue is that the process for selecting that president is suboptimal/obsolete/inelegant?
Priorities, folks.
Uh, no.
Naive bean-counters and CEOs may think that, but writing code is not like making t-shirts.
I'm guessing they probably wouldn't like being called "naive". Would "unsophisticated" be better? "Under-knowledgeable"?
Defending your awful candidate for president by saying awful true things about the other statutory duopoly candidate is a wondrous thing.
Keep up the good work.
P.S. Saying awful false things is almost as good, and is in some ways better, if you get caught doing it.
And this is a bad thing, why, exactly?
Forgot to include these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=338
Sounds like a variation of the thermal depolymerization process used in Carthage MO. What's the big difference?
If they're going to stay true to the book, they're going to need at least one, to play Juan Rico.
With increased size come economies of scale. Or at least,t he possibility of economies of scale.
With increased size come outages or destruction which affect larger numbers of people. Or at least the possibility of such outages or destruction.
Barings Bank comes to mind.
So does Nassim Nicholas Taleb's anti-fragility.
The kind of history that corrupt third world countries routinely make
Or segregation-era Deep South states with term limits for governors.
Is it alarming because it shows how global warming (FTFY) is real, or because it shows how global warming is not real?
I mean, it could go either way.
Oh. DiCaprio. Never mind.
If it may have been as much as 6.7 inches/century, that's over 60 inches per millennium. Nearly as much as I am tall! More than the height of an average American woman!
I'm heading for high ground now, before it's too late.
"This will increase demand for people with IT skills who can set up and operate the automation systems -- but at far smaller numbers than the people automation displaces."
Tractors decimated farm employment.
Time to bring back horses, obviously.
When county prosecutors are elected officials, and "good" stats are helpful when seeking re-election or higher office, you can expect more of this sort of thing. It seems to me.
Supposedly, the best way to get a Nobel in Economics is to pick a topic that "isn't economics" or is obvious or is obviously false, or otherwise is a dumb idea.
The only example that comes to mind at the moment is behavioral economics, but this tendency has popped up more than once in the podcasts at http://econtalk.org/ .
If you want to go looking for other examples there, its probably best to skip the podcasts about the economics of pirates, and the manufacturing of potato chips, and of car parts. (Probably.)
Which is why a former employer would let contract workers go for the last couple of months of the year, so it could make its numbers. Then, come January, a lot of those people got brought back. They were really a good choice; they already knew the computer systems they had been working on.
It's not the best possible thing for *actual* shareholder value, but apparently Wall Street doesn't pay much attention to the actual business, just numbers that relate to the actual business, and calls the numbers derived from them "shareholder value".
That employer is hardly unique, of course.
Too hot or too cold? Too hot, apparently.
"Climate change" is ambiguous, and could be misinterpreted.
How about changing the name to something more specific?
How about "global warming"?
Just a suggestion.