Because all modern trains are electric? They mostly don't use batteries because they're run off a diesel generator. Obviously, the electrics don't have the generator and just run off wires.
A small amount of deflation is OK, but the problem is that in a deflationary spiral, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The currency keeps getting more and more valuable and as such nobody is willing to spend it because it's going to be more valuable in the future.
An economy in a genuine deflationary spiral is ultimately doomed to grind to a halt leaving people with something that's nominally very valuable, but in practice isn't worth the paper it's printed on as nobody is willing to part with their money to buy something. Normally, you can solve the problem by printing more money, but with BTC, once they hit that maximum total BTC, that's it. They can't add more to the system without further delegitimizing the currency, and if people's money is getting nominally more valuable as time goes on, there's no incentive to spend any of it.
And because nobody is mandated to take BTC, there's no reason for anybody to buy them after it hits a certain value.
And yet your post is completely wrong. The profits to the people in early come from later arrivals and at some point there won't be enough money to keep it going.
And no, it hasn't been proven wrong so many times, it's still just as true now as it was early on. If you don't believe me, look at the production curve and ultimate total.
As far as deflationary spiral, yes, they're divisible 99,999,999 times, but you're dealing with a fixed quantity of bitcoins that are possible. It doesn't matter whether you can divide them once or a hundred trillion times, you still eventually hit a point where there are no new BTC being created.
Posts like this are precisely why BTC supports are not being taken seriously, you clearly have thought very little about the subject to even suggest that things can end well.
But, that isn't standard though. It's mostly just MS, Sony and Nintendo that do that, if I buy a gift card for Starbucks, it's denominated in USD, if I buy one for McDonald's, it's USD. In fact I have a hard time finding any that aren't involved with gaming.
And the aspect which really makes me question the legality is that they use that as a means of doing an end run around typical consumer protections.
Economists have just about the worst track record of any major specialty in terms of quality research.
In this case, diversity is far less likely to do with it than the fact that Africa is less than a century out of independence from various European powers. Look what Europe was like until relatively recently. Corruption is still rampant and there isn't a lot of investment that's going on there.
Whether or not it's included is a moot point. If you're using BTC to avoid paying taxes you'd likely be audited and sent to prison for tax evasion. As asinine as it can be, if somebody is receiving free work they're supposed to report that as income on their tax forms, so ultimately, the IRS would have at least one party to prosecute in this case.
All debts have to be denominated in USD in the US, I'm sure most countries have similar rules in place. Which means that it's likely to remain legal forever to take payment in BTC, but you can't refuse to take USD in some form as payment.
And generally, minting and printing are related to the USD coins and paper that people use. Not to the creation or use of non-USD markers for keeping track of financial obligations.
Which is why I'm a bit curious how MS and the others get around skirting the issue by making you buy points and purchasing things with points.
We still don't take BTC because it's a glorified Ponzi scheme. The founders make a crapload of money for very little effort and newbies get less and less as more and more people join. What's more because of the fixed maximum number of BTC that can come into existence, you're going to have a deflationary spiral that you can't escape eventually.
The only people using BTC are people who are too stupid to realize what they're dealing with.
Because it's more than one issue. For years the GOP has been mostly about guns, gays and God, but that doesn't work up here. There's not much social conservativism to be had and the GOP is going way out of it's way to field people that are popular to the far right, but pretty much repellant to everybody else.
In WA, we don't really have the kind of far right that they do in much of the rest of the country, so it tends to chase them into the hands of the liberals. It's been nearly 20 years since the GOP fielded somebody with any hope of winning the state and they're getting worse and worse. Dole had a chance, but he wasn't different enough from Clinton to get votes. He was also the last Presidential candidate to take the state seriously.
That's because the GOP nominated somebody that was completely incompetent and even our conservatives realized that to be the case. Rossi took nearly half of the votes during the 2005 governor's race and Reagan won the state back in the '80s. Not to mention the typically tighter Senatorial campaigns.
The GOP goes to great lengths to piss off the folks of the state, that's why it was so lopsided. If they actually tried to win the state, they might well have done it. But, as it is, the candidates don't bother to show up at all and with the slight liberal lean, you end up with election after election of Democrats being elected.
I take it you don't understand what a democratic republic is. Those people you're referring to aren't politicians, they're appointed to carry out the policies that we voted for when we voted for the President and the congress. Apart from the secretaries, most of them work through multiple administrations and carry out the priorities of the President of the time.
And how do you explain states like WA that get ignored despite having only a couple percentage points difference between the parties?
It's one thing to ignore states where you have half the supporters and another to ignore states where you're basically within the margin of error to being with because you have a better likelihood of winning based upon the small state bonus.
Seriously, do some research, the electoral college is an all or nothing proposition by and large at the state level. It's always better to win a state than to lose it and winning a large state is always preferable to winning a small state.
What you fail to comprehend is that the expected value of a half dozen small states is larger than it would be for a state which had the same population.
The GP is wrong though. Of all the offices that we have, it's just the President where we don't directly vote. Ever since the early 20th century when the constitution was changed to require the direct election of Senators we've been more democracy than republic.
And your point is? I live in a state with 11 electoral votes and Presidential candidates almost never bother to campaign here, even though we're approximately 51% Democrats and 49% Republicans. The reason being that with the winner take all system that's in most states, they either get all the votes or none of the votes.
Now, if they choose to go for 4 small states, they can lose one and still come ahead if they lost WA state. Which is sort of the point, the risk to reward ratio is better if you go for the small states than the large states. It gets even worse if you're talking about a state that's reliably red or blue in which case there's no point at all in campaigning there.
That's the point and each one of those small states gets an extra 2 electors in the Presidential election. They also get an equal say in the Senate regardless of how many people are in the state. Which is definitely an undue weight on the political process.
But, they are radical, they refuse to accept any tax hikes as a part of the package and are mostly focused on eliminating benefits to those that can't defend themselves. That's deeply radical.
And liberals being the biggest hate group is just the sort of ignorance that makes people think of the TP as being extremists. Go do some research, then come back and try to explain why the TP should be taken seriously. They're literally more interested in cutting off their own noses to spite their face than solving any of the many problems the US has.
The problem is the small state bonus. In 2000 Bush wouldn't have won without the extra votes that small states get beyond what they're populations justify. Candidates for President rarely if ever campaign in larger states because we have less pull than the smaller states do.
What's worse, is that these same states that are sparsely populated also tend to be welfare states where they're contributing far less to the federal tax receipts than they're receiving in tax dollars. All while fighting to eliminate programs that are necessary to keep the urban decay to a minimum.
It's not security by obscurity, I really wish this meme would die, seeing as so many people are misapplying it. This is one thing that you can do to make it more expensive to try and crack your systems. It's not the only thing that you should be doing and calling one technique security by obscurity when you can easily figure out which port it is, really just conveys ignorance about what you're talking about.
Anything you can do that makes it inconvenient to try and crack your system is going to help a bit.
You're supposed to downshift towards Neutral until you're slowed enough or the engine seizes up. It's not great, but you do get some stopping power like that and the engine isn't contributing as much. Whereas cutting the engine gives up the stopping power that comes from moving the pistons against the pressure in the cylinders.
Plus, I don't think that Electronic Stability Control functions without a running engine. Which means that you're in more danger turning the engine off than leaving it on, provided you haven't already downshifted into Neutral. Anyways, once you do downshift into neutral, the engine isn't connected to the wheels and as such, you also give up the use of both the power brakes and the power steering without gaining anything.
It's the acronym from the typical order of the gears on an automatic transmission transmission. Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, 1st. Forwhatever reason 2nd gear and any other ones that one can choose are left out. And overdrive is new enough not to have been included. It's just a way of quickly remembering how many clicks you need to get to a given gear.
Report them, that's probably not legal and definitely not safe. Around here you have to be seizure free for at least 6 months before they'll give you your license back. Assuming that the state finds out about it. They'll probably hate you, but you'd be doing them and everybody else on the road a favor.
No, ability is primarily driven by effort put into it. I wasn't good at math when I was a kid, I was terrible at reading. I could barely read at all until I was 8, certainly well behind my peers. The logical extension of your view is that I not be required to read or write because it was frustrating.
After many years, I did eventually manage to master reading sufficiently well that I can read without needing to hear the words in my head as I go along and I actually enjoy reading. The parts of my brain responsible for it eventually were able to figure it out and now I can read quite well.
The same thing goes for other subjects, we make students take those classes so that they can develop those portions of the brain that they wouldn't otherwise develop. This is one of the reasons why Americans, even ones with poor health generally, are in better condition neurologically into old age than people in other countries.
Had the educational establishment taken your view on this, I would never have been able to get the satisfaction out of helping other people learn how to read and do math. I would have been severely disadvantaged even though I have only a minor learning disorder.
Slashdot Mirror
Because all modern trains are electric? They mostly don't use batteries because they're run off a diesel generator. Obviously, the electrics don't have the generator and just run off wires.
A small amount of deflation is OK, but the problem is that in a deflationary spiral, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The currency keeps getting more and more valuable and as such nobody is willing to spend it because it's going to be more valuable in the future.
An economy in a genuine deflationary spiral is ultimately doomed to grind to a halt leaving people with something that's nominally very valuable, but in practice isn't worth the paper it's printed on as nobody is willing to part with their money to buy something. Normally, you can solve the problem by printing more money, but with BTC, once they hit that maximum total BTC, that's it. They can't add more to the system without further delegitimizing the currency, and if people's money is getting nominally more valuable as time goes on, there's no incentive to spend any of it.
And because nobody is mandated to take BTC, there's no reason for anybody to buy them after it hits a certain value.
And yet your post is completely wrong. The profits to the people in early come from later arrivals and at some point there won't be enough money to keep it going.
And no, it hasn't been proven wrong so many times, it's still just as true now as it was early on. If you don't believe me, look at the production curve and ultimate total.
As far as deflationary spiral, yes, they're divisible 99,999,999 times, but you're dealing with a fixed quantity of bitcoins that are possible. It doesn't matter whether you can divide them once or a hundred trillion times, you still eventually hit a point where there are no new BTC being created.
Posts like this are precisely why BTC supports are not being taken seriously, you clearly have thought very little about the subject to even suggest that things can end well.
But, that isn't standard though. It's mostly just MS, Sony and Nintendo that do that, if I buy a gift card for Starbucks, it's denominated in USD, if I buy one for McDonald's, it's USD. In fact I have a hard time finding any that aren't involved with gaming.
And the aspect which really makes me question the legality is that they use that as a means of doing an end run around typical consumer protections.
Not really, I'm sure it seems that way to the GP.
Economists have just about the worst track record of any major specialty in terms of quality research.
In this case, diversity is far less likely to do with it than the fact that Africa is less than a century out of independence from various European powers. Look what Europe was like until relatively recently. Corruption is still rampant and there isn't a lot of investment that's going on there.
Whether or not it's included is a moot point. If you're using BTC to avoid paying taxes you'd likely be audited and sent to prison for tax evasion. As asinine as it can be, if somebody is receiving free work they're supposed to report that as income on their tax forms, so ultimately, the IRS would have at least one party to prosecute in this case.
All debts have to be denominated in USD in the US, I'm sure most countries have similar rules in place. Which means that it's likely to remain legal forever to take payment in BTC, but you can't refuse to take USD in some form as payment.
And generally, minting and printing are related to the USD coins and paper that people use. Not to the creation or use of non-USD markers for keeping track of financial obligations.
Which is why I'm a bit curious how MS and the others get around skirting the issue by making you buy points and purchasing things with points.
We still don't take BTC because it's a glorified Ponzi scheme. The founders make a crapload of money for very little effort and newbies get less and less as more and more people join. What's more because of the fixed maximum number of BTC that can come into existence, you're going to have a deflationary spiral that you can't escape eventually.
The only people using BTC are people who are too stupid to realize what they're dealing with.
Because it's more than one issue. For years the GOP has been mostly about guns, gays and God, but that doesn't work up here. There's not much social conservativism to be had and the GOP is going way out of it's way to field people that are popular to the far right, but pretty much repellant to everybody else.
In WA, we don't really have the kind of far right that they do in much of the rest of the country, so it tends to chase them into the hands of the liberals. It's been nearly 20 years since the GOP fielded somebody with any hope of winning the state and they're getting worse and worse. Dole had a chance, but he wasn't different enough from Clinton to get votes. He was also the last Presidential candidate to take the state seriously.
That's because the GOP nominated somebody that was completely incompetent and even our conservatives realized that to be the case. Rossi took nearly half of the votes during the 2005 governor's race and Reagan won the state back in the '80s. Not to mention the typically tighter Senatorial campaigns.
The GOP goes to great lengths to piss off the folks of the state, that's why it was so lopsided. If they actually tried to win the state, they might well have done it. But, as it is, the candidates don't bother to show up at all and with the slight liberal lean, you end up with election after election of Democrats being elected.
I take it you don't understand what a democratic republic is. Those people you're referring to aren't politicians, they're appointed to carry out the policies that we voted for when we voted for the President and the congress. Apart from the secretaries, most of them work through multiple administrations and carry out the priorities of the President of the time.
And how do you explain states like WA that get ignored despite having only a couple percentage points difference between the parties?
It's one thing to ignore states where you have half the supporters and another to ignore states where you're basically within the margin of error to being with because you have a better likelihood of winning based upon the small state bonus.
Seriously, do some research, the electoral college is an all or nothing proposition by and large at the state level. It's always better to win a state than to lose it and winning a large state is always preferable to winning a small state.
What you fail to comprehend is that the expected value of a half dozen small states is larger than it would be for a state which had the same population.
The GP is wrong though. Of all the offices that we have, it's just the President where we don't directly vote. Ever since the early 20th century when the constitution was changed to require the direct election of Senators we've been more democracy than republic.
If you want to be technical about it, we're a democratic-republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic
I guess it's 12 votes now, I forgot about the census. Still the expected value of the state is lower than rafting together several small states.
And your point is? I live in a state with 11 electoral votes and Presidential candidates almost never bother to campaign here, even though we're approximately 51% Democrats and 49% Republicans. The reason being that with the winner take all system that's in most states, they either get all the votes or none of the votes.
Now, if they choose to go for 4 small states, they can lose one and still come ahead if they lost WA state. Which is sort of the point, the risk to reward ratio is better if you go for the small states than the large states. It gets even worse if you're talking about a state that's reliably red or blue in which case there's no point at all in campaigning there.
That's the point and each one of those small states gets an extra 2 electors in the Presidential election. They also get an equal say in the Senate regardless of how many people are in the state. Which is definitely an undue weight on the political process.
But, they are radical, they refuse to accept any tax hikes as a part of the package and are mostly focused on eliminating benefits to those that can't defend themselves. That's deeply radical.
And liberals being the biggest hate group is just the sort of ignorance that makes people think of the TP as being extremists. Go do some research, then come back and try to explain why the TP should be taken seriously. They're literally more interested in cutting off their own noses to spite their face than solving any of the many problems the US has.
The problem is the small state bonus. In 2000 Bush wouldn't have won without the extra votes that small states get beyond what they're populations justify. Candidates for President rarely if ever campaign in larger states because we have less pull than the smaller states do.
What's worse, is that these same states that are sparsely populated also tend to be welfare states where they're contributing far less to the federal tax receipts than they're receiving in tax dollars. All while fighting to eliminate programs that are necessary to keep the urban decay to a minimum.
It's not security by obscurity, I really wish this meme would die, seeing as so many people are misapplying it. This is one thing that you can do to make it more expensive to try and crack your systems. It's not the only thing that you should be doing and calling one technique security by obscurity when you can easily figure out which port it is, really just conveys ignorance about what you're talking about.
Anything you can do that makes it inconvenient to try and crack your system is going to help a bit.
You're supposed to downshift towards Neutral until you're slowed enough or the engine seizes up. It's not great, but you do get some stopping power like that and the engine isn't contributing as much. Whereas cutting the engine gives up the stopping power that comes from moving the pistons against the pressure in the cylinders.
Plus, I don't think that Electronic Stability Control functions without a running engine. Which means that you're in more danger turning the engine off than leaving it on, provided you haven't already downshifted into Neutral. Anyways, once you do downshift into neutral, the engine isn't connected to the wheels and as such, you also give up the use of both the power brakes and the power steering without gaining anything.
It's the acronym from the typical order of the gears on an automatic transmission transmission. Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, 1st. Forwhatever reason 2nd gear and any other ones that one can choose are left out. And overdrive is new enough not to have been included. It's just a way of quickly remembering how many clicks you need to get to a given gear.
Report them, that's probably not legal and definitely not safe. Around here you have to be seizure free for at least 6 months before they'll give you your license back. Assuming that the state finds out about it. They'll probably hate you, but you'd be doing them and everybody else on the road a favor.
No, ability is primarily driven by effort put into it. I wasn't good at math when I was a kid, I was terrible at reading. I could barely read at all until I was 8, certainly well behind my peers. The logical extension of your view is that I not be required to read or write because it was frustrating.
After many years, I did eventually manage to master reading sufficiently well that I can read without needing to hear the words in my head as I go along and I actually enjoy reading. The parts of my brain responsible for it eventually were able to figure it out and now I can read quite well.
The same thing goes for other subjects, we make students take those classes so that they can develop those portions of the brain that they wouldn't otherwise develop. This is one of the reasons why Americans, even ones with poor health generally, are in better condition neurologically into old age than people in other countries.
Had the educational establishment taken your view on this, I would never have been able to get the satisfaction out of helping other people learn how to read and do math. I would have been severely disadvantaged even though I have only a minor learning disorder.