Back in the Hoover days (If my history books are accurate, I wasn't even alive at the time) the FBI would investigate the highest political elite that had pissed the FBI off in some way for corruption, and were usually able to find something. I've always assumed the same thing is still going on, they're just better at not being so blatant about it anymore.
Steady deflation provides an incentive to keep most of your wealth in savings, rather than invest it. The result is a tendency for slower economic growth compared to an inflationary economy.
People tend to become slaves to debt in America because they don't know how to live within their goddamn means.
Your premise is flawed, gold has booms and busts like every other commodity, and those booms and busts aren't necessarily the optimal choices for the economic conditions they occur in.
Eh, even if gold wasn't currency, people would still want it. It's shiny, can be made into jewelry, which can then be used to help you find a mate (getting down to the basics). If everyone one day decided to stop using gold as currency, you'd still have it as an intrinsically valuable commodity, just less valuable then when it was a currency.
But, you're right to say that every currency (Fiat, mineral, or otherwise) is just an arbitrary token that has been agreed to be worth a certain amount of goods or services. People argue that gold is a better choice of arbitrary token then fiat currency mostly because of the aforementioned enforced scarcity. Other scarce materials that lack industrial applications would also be a good choice of currency for the same reasons.
Looking back on it now (~5 years after college), most of the good little straight-A christian girls are now married and popping out babies. A few of them had troubles with screwing around and getting abortions and whatnot, but I think we just tend to notice it more when they do it.
Nowadays, the people (this applies pretty well to both genders) with the most emotional and physical problems tend to be exactly the ones you would expect, drug addicts, alcoholics, F-students, etc.
Gold is valuable as a currency because it looks pretty, doesn't have many industrial uses, is difficult to counterfeit, and cannot be created infinitely by the controlling authority. There's no artificial scarcity involved with gold like their is with paper money. Classically, staying on the gold standard was a good idea because almost every attempt to create a paper currency throughout history ended in the controlling authority (the monarchy usually, the Fed and congress in our case) printing more money to cover their debts until inflation rendered the currency worthless.
Unfortunately, when the population and economy expand, the money supply has to expand with it. When administered responsibly (I.E. not just printing more money to cover debts), a paper money supply can be controlled much more finely. The gold supply expands in a fairly unpredictable way, controlled by how fast mining can be done, which can be completely unrelated to current economic conditions.
Basically, if you have a responsible and knowledgeable administrator, fiat currency can be superior to the gold standard. If you have an irresponsible administrator, fiat currency can and will turn into economic doomsday.
According to that article, Tacitus was born ~20 years after the Jesus' death. Both the other Greco-Roman sources, similarly, were born at least a generation after his death, and cannot be considered contemporaneous. They can only know anything by having been told about it secondhand, which fits exactly with the argument of Jesus as a historical person having been invented, rather than a real person.
Great-Great Grandparents were probably born ~100 years ago. Contemporaneous sources from that period (Birth certificates, town hall records, newspaper clippings if they ever did anything notable) are still pretty accessible, depending on the area in which they lived.
I'd expect any corporation to be "Not good" - shady, unethical, etc. Otherwise they'd probably go out of business, But outright evil is a whole different league.
I disagree, there's still enough wealth disparity between American and Indian IT workers that, from their perspective, all of us are the upper class to be fought against, so classist rhetoric will tend to fall on deaf ears.
Similarly, nationalism tends to be a much more powerful motivational force than classism, it seems more likely that an Indian workers union would fights for the demands of Indian workers first, and workers in general second.
As time goes on, and globalism continues to change the world market, I do believe workers worldwide will eventually swing back towards how you see the world, uniting against exploitative practices, but this is decades away, and won't benefit any of us American workers in the short term.
It controls for experience. Random people off the street might be more or less able to move around in armor, all depending on how quickly they take to it. It could have been possible that wearing armor which distributes weight evenly is no more tiring than wearing a backpack, but because the volunteers weren't familiar with armor, they would expend more energy for that reason.
Also, it's not possible to go out and get real knights, because we haven't finished the time machine yet. Reenactors are the best next thing.
So you support lifetime incarceration for those under the age of criminal responsibility as well?
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in most cases, simply because the number of people who later turn out to be innocent after having been convicted, but I don't see it as in intrinsically less moral or less ethical punishment for someone who is legitimately guilty.
Why are you okay with effectively ending the life of a person through a lifetime of confinement who isn't criminally responsible for his actions? What exactly is the moral difference between executing someone now, and isolating them so they die decades from now after sitting around in a cell their entire life?
It's a de-facto death sentence through "old age" that takes decades to carry out.
I don't see a lifetime of imprisonment (or confinement in a mental hospital, which is arguably worse) as a better ethical choice than execution. Both options have effectively ended that person's life.
Explain it to me, I'm honestly not getting it. This is a person who cannot function in society, the options are either a lifetime of confinement, or death penalty. Neither of these are a good solution for someone committing acts because of a mental defect, but they're absolutely necessary, because if he's incapable of understanding why this was a bad idea the first time, he'll be incapable of understanding why it's a bad idea the next time.
GP's point is that if a state is banned from creating a specific law - and then they create that same law, but with a different name, it doesn't matter that you've changed that name, it's still the same law, and the state is still banned from creating that law.
Fuuuuuck man, you think we did that in the Air Force? We had to make it 1.5 miles in 12 minutes, I know 60-year olds who could do that.
He should have been able to guarantee you a cyberwarfare job. When I enlisted (2004) we got to pick a job.
Still, it was probably good you never went in. I stuck in the 4 years for the G.I. Bill, but even in a technical field (communications) the military is a load of bullshit. Best thing about being in is getting out at the end. Benefits aren't bad though.
If you really want to be a cyberwarrior or similar, check out three-letter organizations like the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Margaret Hamburg?
Physician, public health administrator, seems decently qualified. What exactly is your issue with her?
Back in the Hoover days (If my history books are accurate, I wasn't even alive at the time) the FBI would investigate the highest political elite that had pissed the FBI off in some way for corruption, and were usually able to find something. I've always assumed the same thing is still going on, they're just better at not being so blatant about it anymore.
10*1.03^10 = $13.439, not $16.
I'm not saying savings will always be the optimal choice over investment in a deflationary economy, only that it will happen more often.
Steady deflation provides an incentive to keep most of your wealth in savings, rather than invest it. The result is a tendency for slower economic growth compared to an inflationary economy.
People tend to become slaves to debt in America because they don't know how to live within their goddamn means.
Your premise is flawed, gold has booms and busts like every other commodity, and those booms and busts aren't necessarily the optimal choices for the economic conditions they occur in.
Eh, even if gold wasn't currency, people would still want it. It's shiny, can be made into jewelry, which can then be used to help you find a mate (getting down to the basics). If everyone one day decided to stop using gold as currency, you'd still have it as an intrinsically valuable commodity, just less valuable then when it was a currency.
But, you're right to say that every currency (Fiat, mineral, or otherwise) is just an arbitrary token that has been agreed to be worth a certain amount of goods or services. People argue that gold is a better choice of arbitrary token then fiat currency mostly because of the aforementioned enforced scarcity. Other scarce materials that lack industrial applications would also be a good choice of currency for the same reasons.
Looking back on it now (~5 years after college), most of the good little straight-A christian girls are now married and popping out babies. A few of them had troubles with screwing around and getting abortions and whatnot, but I think we just tend to notice it more when they do it.
Nowadays, the people (this applies pretty well to both genders) with the most emotional and physical problems tend to be exactly the ones you would expect, drug addicts, alcoholics, F-students, etc.
Both are pretty bad actually.
Gold is valuable as a currency because it looks pretty, doesn't have many industrial uses, is difficult to counterfeit, and cannot be created infinitely by the controlling authority. There's no artificial scarcity involved with gold like their is with paper money. Classically, staying on the gold standard was a good idea because almost every attempt to create a paper currency throughout history ended in the controlling authority (the monarchy usually, the Fed and congress in our case) printing more money to cover their debts until inflation rendered the currency worthless.
Unfortunately, when the population and economy expand, the money supply has to expand with it. When administered responsibly (I.E. not just printing more money to cover debts), a paper money supply can be controlled much more finely. The gold supply expands in a fairly unpredictable way, controlled by how fast mining can be done, which can be completely unrelated to current economic conditions.
Basically, if you have a responsible and knowledgeable administrator, fiat currency can be superior to the gold standard. If you have an irresponsible administrator, fiat currency can and will turn into economic doomsday.
According to that article, Tacitus was born ~20 years after the Jesus' death. Both the other Greco-Roman sources, similarly, were born at least a generation after his death, and cannot be considered contemporaneous. They can only know anything by having been told about it secondhand, which fits exactly with the argument of Jesus as a historical person having been invented, rather than a real person.
I wouldn't be able to prove they did.
Great-Great Grandparents were probably born ~100 years ago. Contemporaneous sources from that period (Birth certificates, town hall records, newspaper clippings if they ever did anything notable) are still pretty accessible, depending on the area in which they lived.
First post was funny, you just have no soul.
Mostly just poking fun at Google's slogan there :P
I'd expect any corporation to be "Not good" - shady, unethical, etc. Otherwise they'd probably go out of business, But outright evil is a whole different league.
It means you're retarded.
I disagree, there's still enough wealth disparity between American and Indian IT workers that, from their perspective, all of us are the upper class to be fought against, so classist rhetoric will tend to fall on deaf ears.
Similarly, nationalism tends to be a much more powerful motivational force than classism, it seems more likely that an Indian workers union would fights for the demands of Indian workers first, and workers in general second.
As time goes on, and globalism continues to change the world market, I do believe workers worldwide will eventually swing back towards how you see the world, uniting against exploitative practices, but this is decades away, and won't benefit any of us American workers in the short term.
It controls for experience. Random people off the street might be more or less able to move around in armor, all depending on how quickly they take to it. It could have been possible that wearing armor which distributes weight evenly is no more tiring than wearing a backpack, but because the volunteers weren't familiar with armor, they would expend more energy for that reason.
Also, it's not possible to go out and get real knights, because we haven't finished the time machine yet. Reenactors are the best next thing.
It worked for Scientology after all.
Does this mean Google is finally evil, though?
So you support lifetime incarceration for those under the age of criminal responsibility as well?
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in most cases, simply because the number of people who later turn out to be innocent after having been convicted, but I don't see it as in intrinsically less moral or less ethical punishment for someone who is legitimately guilty.
We would certainly kill a cat that had a disease making it violent towards humans.
Why are you okay with effectively ending the life of a person through a lifetime of confinement who isn't criminally responsible for his actions? What exactly is the moral difference between executing someone now, and isolating them so they die decades from now after sitting around in a cell their entire life?
It's a de-facto death sentence through "old age" that takes decades to carry out.
I don't see a lifetime of imprisonment (or confinement in a mental hospital, which is arguably worse) as a better ethical choice than execution. Both options have effectively ended that person's life.
Explain it to me, I'm honestly not getting it. This is a person who cannot function in society, the options are either a lifetime of confinement, or death penalty. Neither of these are a good solution for someone committing acts because of a mental defect, but they're absolutely necessary, because if he's incapable of understanding why this was a bad idea the first time, he'll be incapable of understanding why it's a bad idea the next time.
GP's point is that if a state is banned from creating a specific law - and then they create that same law, but with a different name, it doesn't matter that you've changed that name, it's still the same law, and the state is still banned from creating that law.
run 10 miles with 100 pounds of gear on our backs
Fuuuuuck man, you think we did that in the Air Force? We had to make it 1.5 miles in 12 minutes, I know 60-year olds who could do that.
He should have been able to guarantee you a cyberwarfare job. When I enlisted (2004) we got to pick a job.
Still, it was probably good you never went in. I stuck in the 4 years for the G.I. Bill, but even in a technical field (communications) the military is a load of bullshit. Best thing about being in is getting out at the end. Benefits aren't bad though.
If you really want to be a cyberwarrior or similar, check out three-letter organizations like the NSA.