I know where you stand on economic policy in general...
But if you agree with the quote you've provided
But not gold silver, and paper money; they can be held virtually without cost. It is this privileged position of the moneyholder over everyone else (except landholders) in the marketplace that gives rise to interest (monetary).
doesn't ongoing inflation reduce the privileged position of the moneyholder over those who are selling labor? Does inflation not serve a useful purpose in providing a more equal footing for those without amassed gold or paper?
Working for a large corporation depends less on the corporation as a whole, and more on the people you work with or your manager. In my case, I have four kids (7-3). My boss knows my family comes first.
Thanks for the mathematical explanation of how many kids you have. I'm curious as to why you chose that particular explanation -- why not use the simple four kids (2^2) explanation, it would make it a lot easier for those of used to thinking in binary.
I'm lucky, I have one kid -- I have a variety of ways I can express that:
one kid (1^n) one kid (3-2) one kid (lim[x->0]{(ln(1+x))/x)}) Etc.
Wait... did I get bogged down and miss your point?
WTF... how is the parent to this post modded informative? Did the mod who did that not actually watch the clip?
I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?
If you want it easier to digest for yourself, here's a nice link to get you started. I know, if you visit mediamatters.org, your head will explode. As a self-professed dittohead, you must have already written them off as irrelevant. But the clip is quite clear -- Rush did exactly what spun claimed he did.
We need some disambiguation, though. My "magic stick" seems to be very different than your "magic stick". Yours is likely black or silver; mine varies from light tan/pink to purplish. I'm sure there are other differences as well.
As a matter of fact, my "magic stick" is superior to yours, since I can cede control of it to my wife and still watch MST3K marathons.
IPv4 has almost 256^4 or around 4 billion IP's that's almost one IP per person on the planet and plenty to last a *LONG* time.
Oh?
I personally account for something like 10 or 15 IP addresses (two work computers, two home computers, two networked printers, various other devices with an IP address assigned for networking). And I know plenty of people with more than me.
What happens when even more devices need IP addresses?
The numbers we're speaking of may seem astronomical, but they are still finite...
In short, given that cell phones are utterly important to our lives today, I'm going to have to see a lot more independent evidence before I even begin to suspect that they're actually dangerous
FWIW, your assertion (you need to see more evidence to suspect danger) doesn't logically follow from your given (the utility of cell phones).
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're really saying is that because cell phones are so important to our lives, you're willing to dismiss allegations of danger unless there's better evidence for them.
FWIW, both Bennetts I have known have been redneck hicks (and proud of it).
Suburban NJ... one drove a Pinto, the other a Chevord pickup truck (Chevy front and chassis, Ford bed welded on). Both with Confederate flags in or on their vehicles.
(Just commenting on an inane offtopic comment thread because there's no way I'm going to read BH's massif just to glean a sentence or two of potential insight).
You'd think the guy's writing experience consists of stretching three-paragraph essays to 1500-word essays in high school.
Now, this requires Minnesota to prove that the coal generated electricity is a threat to health and or safety of its citizens. That's going to be hard to do.
Au contraire, mon frere. This issue has been proved already in federal court, relating to federal lawsuits brought by NJ under the Clean Air Act to stop dirty coal-fired plants in upwind states (PA, OH, WV, maybe more).
Could be a matter of selection bias. Maybe he doesn't bother reading books not highly recommended to him by others.
Or could be a matter of reporting bias. Maye he doesn't bother writing reviews for books that aren't very good.
Maybe he really does suffer from the "video game rating" problem where the minimum score is 6 on a 10-point scale. But no matter what, you'd be silly to spend a lot of time on anything based on the review of single person.
I know in my case, I don't have a lot of free time... I don't think I've read a book in the last two years that I wouldn't give at least a 9 out of 10... partly because I get most of my books at the library, and the first chapter or so of any book is enough information for me to decide to read the whole book or not.
I would like to point out that sopssa, if not a paid astroturfer, is an MS fanboy. And therefore all his posts need to be taken with a grain of salt, just as you would for any other fanboy.
Personally, I think he's on a payroll. But that's because I'm cynical.
It's a false dichotomy because of the substitution you performed on the first part of your argument...
You argued that Adobe's market share in pdf-writers is not dropping. Then you argue that if this is not the case, then they must be "throwing away their money without any profit expectation".
Adobe losing market share to free alternatives is not mutually exclusive with Adobe spending money on product development. This is what makes your dichotomy incorrect.
While you're correct that Adobe makes more from other tools, to say that free software is cutting into sales of Acrobat is just plain dumb.
No. That is not dumb. At my current employer, we are phasing out Acrobat (not necessarily Reader, as it is required for some of the third-party SAAS products we use). But my department alone has dropped from 6 Acrobat Pro licenses to 1 within the last year.
Sure, it's anecdotal. But I can't be the only one who has observed the same thing... and even if I were the only one, it would be *exactly* correct to say that free software alternatives to Acrobat are cutting into Acrobat sales.
As a smart company, don't you think there's a REASON that Adobe continues product development on Acrobat? Or do you think they're just throwing away their money without any profit expectation?
That's a neat gimmick you've used there, the old false dichotomy trick. Did you learn how to have intelligent discussion by watching Jerry Springer, or are you naturally an idiot? (How's that for a false dichotomy in return?)
As I said in another response to my original post, low vapor pressure is a huge problem for any spectroscopic system. Whether or not an explosive can be detected with a puffer system, an imaging system is another layer of security. Layers, layers, layers.
Cost, cost, cost. With diminishing marginal returns.
Sorry if I sound like a jerk. But adding layers of security is of questionable value at a certain point. There will always be some threat that we can't detect. And you can bet that an intelligent terrorist would use a method that avoids our detection systems. So is the point of the security exercise just to stop the stupid terrorists? Or is it something else entirely?
I'm not saying safety is unimportant. But I question the value of Yet Another Contractor Getting Paid Billions for something of marginal use.
Ok, not exactly what I was looking for. You supposedly work on developing these things, and then link to a NG Online image (and by extension, article). I was hoping to see something I hadn't read or seen before.
If you read the NG article, you'll note that included are some statements from a privacy advocacy org. And among those statements is this interesting tidbit: a pouch filled with liquid at the skin surface will be nearly undetectable to the MHz scanner once the liquid reaches skin surface temperature. So we'll still need some other search tools to find threats, like a pat-down (which would also find the gun, but probably not the foam).
In the end, how many detection systems will we need to detect all conceivable likely threats? What's the opportunity cost of the money and time expended on this?
I'm not a security expert. But I'm wary of security theater that has the side effect of enriching the people who implement it. And while I agree that some security at airports is necessary, I'm unsure that we can ever be successful at detecting ALL threats -- and the marginal cost of each additional detection is huge once you get to a certain point.
The proof is in the images. I will provide examples if asked.
OK, I'll bite -- I'm asking. Will you please provide a link to the images to support your assertion?
My main concern is that we're spending god-awful amounts of cash and wasted effort using these systems to detect items which are detectable via other, cheaper, less invasive, means.
Bonus points if you explain each of the images with that in mind -- how did the mm-wave/THz scanner detect something indetectable by other means?
Well being I haven't inserted the head on my shoulders into a vagina lately I would have to agree.
That's ridiculous, we're nerds here. We have and use technology to our benefit. There's no reason* a slashdotter should not be able to rig up a camera at the end of a flexible stick for this observation attempt. You can probably buy an off-the-shelf product that would make the observation trivial.
Really, what sort of luddite would require direct physical observation for something like this?
*Other than finding a willing partner, of course. And no, robot girlfriends don't count.
For instance, while camping, a little warm bacon grease from the skillet will suffice to allow the human hand to fulfill it's duties.
Note to self: Do not allow Spun to prep my food next time we're camping. 2nd note to self: Allow bacon grease to cool away from the fire a while before attempting. 3rd note to self: Research llama farms in NJ.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you've never seen non sequiturs used in humor before? They're the basis of most of the humor in Family Guy and many other shows...
But if you agree with the quote you've provided
doesn't ongoing inflation reduce the privileged position of the moneyholder over those who are selling labor? Does inflation not serve a useful purpose in providing a more equal footing for those without amassed gold or paper?
Thanks for the mathematical explanation of how many kids you have. I'm curious as to why you chose that particular explanation -- why not use the simple four kids (2^2) explanation, it would make it a lot easier for those of used to thinking in binary.
I'm lucky, I have one kid -- I have a variety of ways I can express that:
one kid (1^n)
one kid (3-2)
one kid (lim[x->0]{(ln(1+x))/x)})
Etc.
Wait... did I get bogged down and miss your point?
Meh. That was boaring, hamfisted attempt.
How could you have missed that he really brought home the bacon?
Were you just spamming puns?
If you want it easier to digest for yourself, here's a nice link to get you started. I know, if you visit mediamatters.org, your head will explode. As a self-professed dittohead, you must have already written them off as irrelevant. But the clip is quite clear -- Rush did exactly what spun claimed he did.
We need some disambiguation, though. My "magic stick" seems to be very different than your "magic stick". Yours is likely black or silver; mine varies from light tan/pink to purplish. I'm sure there are other differences as well.
As a matter of fact, my "magic stick" is superior to yours, since I can cede control of it to my wife and still watch MST3K marathons.
Oh?
I personally account for something like 10 or 15 IP addresses (two work computers, two home computers, two networked printers, various other devices with an IP address assigned for networking). And I know plenty of people with more than me.
What happens when even more devices need IP addresses?
The numbers we're speaking of may seem astronomical, but they are still finite...
FWIW, your assertion (you need to see more evidence to suspect danger) doesn't logically follow from your given (the utility of cell phones).
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're really saying is that because cell phones are so important to our lives, you're willing to dismiss allegations of danger unless there's better evidence for them.
FWIW, both Bennetts I have known have been redneck hicks (and proud of it).
Suburban NJ... one drove a Pinto, the other a Chevord pickup truck (Chevy front and chassis, Ford bed welded on). Both with Confederate flags in or on their vehicles.
(Just commenting on an inane offtopic comment thread because there's no way I'm going to read BH's massif just to glean a sentence or two of potential insight).
You'd think the guy's writing experience consists of stretching three-paragraph essays to 1500-word essays in high school.
You're right, the US & USSR did the lion's share of the heavy lifting into space.
*ducks*
I call bullshit. If environmental activists are protesting in a desert location, are they not Browns?
It would be even more fitting if he legally adopted and then killed off all other people with that name.
Au contraire, mon frere. This issue has been proved already in federal court, relating to federal lawsuits brought by NJ under the Clean Air Act to stop dirty coal-fired plants in upwind states (PA, OH, WV, maybe more).
Could be a matter of selection bias. Maybe he doesn't bother reading books not highly recommended to him by others.
Or could be a matter of reporting bias. Maye he doesn't bother writing reviews for books that aren't very good.
Maybe he really does suffer from the "video game rating" problem where the minimum score is 6 on a 10-point scale. But no matter what, you'd be silly to spend a lot of time on anything based on the review of single person.
I know in my case, I don't have a lot of free time... I don't think I've read a book in the last two years that I wouldn't give at least a 9 out of 10... partly because I get most of my books at the library, and the first chapter or so of any book is enough information for me to decide to read the whole book or not.
I would like to point out that sopssa, if not a paid astroturfer, is an MS fanboy. And therefore all his posts need to be taken with a grain of salt, just as you would for any other fanboy.
Personally, I think he's on a payroll. But that's because I'm cynical.
It's a false dichotomy because of the substitution you performed on the first part of your argument...
You argued that Adobe's market share in pdf-writers is not dropping. Then you argue that if this is not the case, then they must be "throwing away their money without any profit expectation".
Adobe losing market share to free alternatives is not mutually exclusive with Adobe spending money on product development. This is what makes your dichotomy incorrect.
You leave my wife out of this!
No. That is not dumb. At my current employer, we are phasing out Acrobat (not necessarily Reader, as it is required for some of the third-party SAAS products we use). But my department alone has dropped from 6 Acrobat Pro licenses to 1 within the last year.
Sure, it's anecdotal. But I can't be the only one who has observed the same thing... and even if I were the only one, it would be *exactly* correct to say that free software alternatives to Acrobat are cutting into Acrobat sales.
That's a neat gimmick you've used there, the old false dichotomy trick. Did you learn how to have intelligent discussion by watching Jerry Springer, or are you naturally an idiot? (How's that for a false dichotomy in return?)
Cost, cost, cost. With diminishing marginal returns.
Sorry if I sound like a jerk. But adding layers of security is of questionable value at a certain point. There will always be some threat that we can't detect. And you can bet that an intelligent terrorist would use a method that avoids our detection systems. So is the point of the security exercise just to stop the stupid terrorists? Or is it something else entirely?
I'm not saying safety is unimportant. But I question the value of Yet Another Contractor Getting Paid Billions for something of marginal use.
Ok, not exactly what I was looking for. You supposedly work on developing these things, and then link to a NG Online image (and by extension, article). I was hoping to see something I hadn't read or seen before.
If you read the NG article, you'll note that included are some statements from a privacy advocacy org. And among those statements is this interesting tidbit: a pouch filled with liquid at the skin surface will be nearly undetectable to the MHz scanner once the liquid reaches skin surface temperature. So we'll still need some other search tools to find threats, like a pat-down (which would also find the gun, but probably not the foam).
In the end, how many detection systems will we need to detect all conceivable likely threats? What's the opportunity cost of the money and time expended on this?
I'm not a security expert. But I'm wary of security theater that has the side effect of enriching the people who implement it. And while I agree that some security at airports is necessary, I'm unsure that we can ever be successful at detecting ALL threats -- and the marginal cost of each additional detection is huge once you get to a certain point.
OK, I'll bite -- I'm asking. Will you please provide a link to the images to support your assertion?
My main concern is that we're spending god-awful amounts of cash and wasted effort using these systems to detect items which are detectable via other, cheaper, less invasive, means.
Bonus points if you explain each of the images with that in mind -- how did the mm-wave/THz scanner detect something indetectable by other means?
Meh, that's no big deal. Wake me up when a bunch of black holes line up to dance.
THEN you know we've got problems.
Doo doo doo de do de do doo doo/
Doo doo doo de do de do doo doo/
Do the hustle!
That's ridiculous, we're nerds here. We have and use technology to our benefit. There's no reason* a slashdotter should not be able to rig up a camera at the end of a flexible stick for this observation attempt. You can probably buy an off-the-shelf product that would make the observation trivial.
Really, what sort of luddite would require direct physical observation for something like this?
*Other than finding a willing partner, of course. And no, robot girlfriends don't count.
Have you even BEEN three miles underground?!
Everyone knows that the elephant cities are underground, of course you haven't seen them...
And before you dismiss the possibility of elephants on the moon... all I have to say is, "Cloaks of Invisibility" and "Cloaking Devices".
Just because YOU haven't observed it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Note to self: Do not allow Spun to prep my food next time we're camping.
2nd note to self: Allow bacon grease to cool away from the fire a while before attempting.
3rd note to self: Research llama farms in NJ.