To avoid the exact idiot response you gave, I chose the words "merely proven technology." So your response is to point at a demonstrator project. Durrrrrrrrrrrrr
And no, they wouldn't disagree with me at all! If you'd think for yourself, you'd know if you're the Tennessee Valley Authority, or somebody else. (Spoiler: You're somebody else) If you actually read the fucking link before you posted it you'd see that that project was complete in 1978! So you can fucking just look and see if other utilities were building a bunch of them after that. Spoiler: They just built the demo project they were paid to build, they don't actually waste money on that shit!
Try to comprehend the difference between what I said, and what you responded to. Otherwise, there is no need for you to even read the words, much less reply to them.
No it doesn't! It helps your fantasy because people in your echo chamber told you so.
The way to measure how useful it actually is in Scotland is by simply measuring how much of it they are doing. And they're not doing it, because it doesn't have all the advantages your echo chamber told you, and they left out the disadvantages to boot.
Scotland is a major wind power producer, and it doesn't run water pumps; it goes onto the grid.
You might want to be advised that the Government isn't tasked with regulating industry for the public benefit, but rather to regulate industry for the benefit of the affected industry as a whole; they're not trying to protect the public from industry, but to prevent or mitigate individual businesses from gaining an unfair advantage over their competitors.
You're wrong on the facts here, but it doesn't even matter; your mistake is in thinking that the government would naturally have different interests than industry. And that just isn't a reasonable understanding of what exists, or what is supposed to exist by US law.
That is the reason that a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, and the FTC has a Bureau of Consumer Protection. These are agencies that benefit the named group, not law enforcement agencies. So the natural expectation is that FTC would be managing their Consumer Protection office primarily to support trade; so their emphasis should be on the perception of consumer protections, and the need of the consumer to feel safe in order to support confidence and maximize trade. Whereas the CFPB might actually contain focus on the actual needs of financial services consumers.
You should be advised that using hydro for storage is merely proven technology, it is not an actual useful practice. So no, Scotland having mountains doesn't mean it is better suited for PV or wind generation.
Wow, man. You need some sort of plugin to stop you if you're about to post drunk.
You did talk about the subject. You really did, just scroll up; not only are they your words, they should still be on your screen when you're looking at this thread. Durrrrrrrrr
Better Luck next Next Time. You're either a complete idiot, or you're passive-aggressively pretending you're too stupid to understand. Is there a difference? I mean, if you disagree with me, that's fine. But you're not even comprehending the points you purport to disagree with!
Well, if 2% of Tesla's workforce was so bad it needed firing all at once, I'd say it's the management that was underperforming.
Exactly! When I saw that it said many of them were the highest paid for their positions, I instantly thought "team leads/managers." Exactly what you'd hope to see at this stage in the process when they were hiring so fast for so long; a culling of lame middle managers from every department. You can't cull the dud workers until after you cull the dud managers, or the dud managers will end up firing all the good workers to cover their own asses. This is a sign of good governance.
The whole concept of a "layoff" at a company that has pre-sold their entire manufacturing output for years and whose growth is only constrained by manufacturing output, it's just too silly for words. Are there really "nerds" this stupid, or do we have a lot of fake nerds around here these days?
I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.
I've also yet to meet an asshole fired for misbehavior who understands that being an asshole is poor performance. They almost invariably believe their performance was so divine that they have a Special Right of Asshole.
I'm guessing a lot of the people who claim that "no performance reason was given" were in fact told a performance reason related to behavior and they just can't comprehend that anything other than widgets per hour is a performance metric.
No, you simply failed to comprehend my point, and yet you replied to it anyways.
Better luck next time, and don't worry, if you manage to comprehend what I say and give a response that shows you understood the words before deciding you disagree, I'll be happy to respond to whatever you said. But if, as here, you just totally ignore what I said and respond as if you only read every third word, then I'll only respond to remind that words have meaning, and you don't know what that meaning is because you didn't read it carefully.
You're derping all over yourself, the treaty is symmetrical, neither side could possibly have "rolled over."
You seem to totally fail to comprehend the phrase, "rolled over." It means they didn't want to do it, but did because of pressure. Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend that what the UK signs extradition treaties, it does so because it thinks they're a good idea? How fucking hard is that?
That fact is the same regardless of if you personally approve of extradition treaties or not, because nobody is claiming that the decision was yours to make.
What a fucking moron. I mean, your conclusions are also stupid but who cares? You can't even comprehend if you're the Queen of England, or not.
Right, that's not rolling over, that's what the treaty says to do.
Can you please try to at least have the IQ of a pair of shoes?
It doesn't have to be something that is illegal in the UK! That has nothing to do with it. Things that are legal in the UK and illegal in the US are not automatically things where you can flee from the US authorities and hide in the UK and be protected by their government. That is just plain stupid, and that's why we have the treaties.
That's the whole fucking point. It was illegal in the US, and the US informed the UK of that fact, and so the UK granted the extradition. That's the process. The only real consideration is regarding the death penalty; the punishment has to be a legal type of punishment in both countries. So the UK doesn't do execution, so the US has to promise not to execute the person. That's it, that's all. Being sent to prison for a long sentence on a felony is a totally normal and legal punishment in the UK. It doesn't matter if the punishments for individual crimes is different.
If the US asks the UK to extradite a person, the UK courts are only looking at: is the accused person the same person that they are trying to extradite or is it maybe the wrong person with the same name; are they accused of a US crime; did the US document properly their claim of having evidence to present to the US courts that could prove the accusation; and will they face execution as a possible punishment?
That's it. Nothing is being proven other than identity. Nothing is being weighed. The paperwork is being checked for completeness. The case might be weak. No problem. The conduct might have been legal if it had been done in the UK. No problem. The crime might even have been committed on a computer system or financial system located in the US, by a person acting over a communication network from the UK. Again, no problem! The evidence might not even exist, it might just be a lie by the prosecutor; even that would not be a problem, because extradition weighs the documented promise that evidence exists, not the evidence itself.
Well, laundered money ends up being counted multiple times. That's the whole point; you create fake transactions and put the dirty money in it, pay taxes on it, and make it clean. If you have multiple stages in order to obscure the true nature of the transactions, you're counting it multiple times.
How much of that $42B in "volume" was taxable income? Divide that by 3, and that's how much actual economic activity you should expect was represented.
Remember also: a lot of bitcoin gets moved around just to bundle and rebundle it and hide the transaction history; no money is being made and no actual economic activity is happening, but those bookkeeping methods increase the total sum of transactions done on an exchange.
Don't be overly credulous of numbers; the misleading numbers have meaning too, and they might only be misleading because they mean something different than you anticipated. Wait for the meaning behind the numbers, and use that directly.
No need to worry over the absolute that was stated, obviously it was hyperbole.
The point is, most of the bitcoin market is illegal items. A few businesses accept bitcoin and a few customers use it. They haven't been burned by it yet, so they will continue to for now. Maybe it is really true that you spend lots of bitcoin, or maybe it is really true that you accepted a bunch of questionable payment instruments and you've converted a small fraction of them to goods and services, but you are also sitting on a pile of financial instruments with uncertain future value. And the vast majority of the trade that they are good for is contraband.
The real key problem though is that it means it is just a transactional currency; if you sell a bunch of units, the price of units goes down rapidly because there is no latent demand at all; all the demand is based on the transactions.
Which is to say, the value of the goods sold in dollars is the same regardless of if the price is 1 bitcoin or 10 bitcoin. If you try to dump a bunch on the market, the price goes down, as soon as the product sellers realize it happened their prices change; they might even have a computerized system that sets the price of the items based on the exchange rate they can get.
The high bitcoin value is based on this transactional nature, and lots of new people coming into the system. Lots of criminals were using cash still a year ago and are using bitcoin now. Supply is constrained both by the design of the currency, and also by hoarding. So the price will drift up depending how many new people are coming in. And later when it peaks the prices will stabilize because people really just want dollars at both ends; they want to spend dollars and receive dollars, but they want to hide the transaction.
End result, for the hoarders the price is mostly fake; it is a real price that they can get by selling small quantities, but attempts to cash out will crash the price. And there is no real inherent value to correct after that, so it just normalizes and resets and drifts up as people enter the market.
Actually, it is a significant matter of historical accuracy and how to communicate about these types of things; society is still working this sort of thing out.
When a person changes their name, you're expected to use their new name; but it is not uniformly true that you still use their new name when discussing actions in the past. In many situations people use the information that was true at the time that they're speaking of to speak about the things that happened at that time, and they consider it to be distorting history to alter historical facts to match later changes.
And then other people say yes, you should always alter historical facts. And if somebody wants to research the history of Muhammad Ali, you're not allowed to tell anybody that he used to have a different name, unless it is only to talk about why he changed his name. And then when they look up old newspaper stories on microfilm, they just have to have the Secret Knowledge if they want to understand who is who.
Same here, I guess. If you want to look up historical reports, you just have to have the Secret Knowledge about what the facts were at the time, and then you just destructively edit the historical references and quotes so that they assert facts from a later time.
Time will tell if these proposed cultural changes happen.;)
Not only is he in defacto jail now, but when he finally leaves he has to stay in the UK and receive his spanking for violating court orders!
The bitcoin price is an interesting thing, but is it possible to actually sell very much at that price? Surely that price is based on new entrants using it as a short term exchange medium, and at the other end people are mostly stockpiling their profits because of the perceived increase in value. I mean, the currency has long term price deflation built in; new currency is harder to create than new products or services, so the currency value increases over time causing prices to decrease. This guarantees hoarding, but what happens if somebody tries to sell a large amount? If the price drops, then people realize their hoard values are just high scores on a screen, and the real money that they can get is highly constrained. Then everybody wants out at the same time.
If you can get somebody to sell you price insurance on the bitcoin, and also accept payment in bitcoin, then you could build a good strategy; if the insurance company is solid enough, anyways.
The UK tends to roll over to US extradition requests pretty easily.
See, that is just a really stupid and ignorant thing to say.
"Roll over" implies they responded to some sort of pressure, and did something they wouldn't otherwise do. But that is a blatant lie; the UK is in fact pleased to have an extradition treaty with the US! There is no "rolling over" to grant a legitimate extradition request; please note also that none was ever requested! The whole idea of extradition in this case is not based on facts; it is purely and completely based on a perceived sense of guilt by an active fugitive from justice.
And extradition isn't something you even can "roll over" on; the only requirement is that they completed the paperwork correctly and claim to have evidence that, if true, would prove a violation of US law. Everything else about it would be ruled on by the US justice system, which is entirely capable of determining if there is evidence of a crime and if there is evidence of a party's guilt.
Just because you hate the US government shouldn't stop you from understanding that the UK's government is actually friends with the US, and have similar legal systems that show each other mutual respect and confidence.
Slashdot Mirror
You wave your hands and declare traffic aggregation as a benefit, but it sounds like a bottleneck to me.
Traditionally that was listed on the disadvantages.
You didn't comprehend my comment.
To avoid the exact idiot response you gave, I chose the words "merely proven technology." So your response is to point at a demonstrator project. Durrrrrrrrrrrrr
And no, they wouldn't disagree with me at all! If you'd think for yourself, you'd know if you're the Tennessee Valley Authority, or somebody else. (Spoiler: You're somebody else) If you actually read the fucking link before you posted it you'd see that that project was complete in 1978! So you can fucking just look and see if other utilities were building a bunch of them after that. Spoiler: They just built the demo project they were paid to build, they don't actually waste money on that shit!
Try to comprehend the difference between what I said, and what you responded to. Otherwise, there is no need for you to even read the words, much less reply to them.
It helps a whole lot to have pumped storage.
No it doesn't! It helps your fantasy because people in your echo chamber told you so.
The way to measure how useful it actually is in Scotland is by simply measuring how much of it they are doing. And they're not doing it, because it doesn't have all the advantages your echo chamber told you, and they left out the disadvantages to boot.
Scotland is a major wind power producer, and it doesn't run water pumps; it goes onto the grid.
The EIA is a oil industry funded group!
You might want to be advised that the Government isn't tasked with regulating industry for the public benefit, but rather to regulate industry for the benefit of the affected industry as a whole; they're not trying to protect the public from industry, but to prevent or mitigate individual businesses from gaining an unfair advantage over their competitors.
You're wrong on the facts here, but it doesn't even matter; your mistake is in thinking that the government would naturally have different interests than industry. And that just isn't a reasonable understanding of what exists, or what is supposed to exist by US law.
That is the reason that a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, and the FTC has a Bureau of Consumer Protection. These are agencies that benefit the named group, not law enforcement agencies. So the natural expectation is that FTC would be managing their Consumer Protection office primarily to support trade; so their emphasis should be on the perception of consumer protections, and the need of the consumer to feel safe in order to support confidence and maximize trade. Whereas the CFPB might actually contain focus on the actual needs of financial services consumers.
So, more beerish than bearish.
You should be advised that using hydro for storage is merely proven technology, it is not an actual useful practice. So no, Scotland having mountains doesn't mean it is better suited for PV or wind generation.
None of it happened in secret, it is all there in the thread above if you're curious what you were replying to.
Squirrel!!!
Not convinced.
Yeah, and Apple thought everybody was going to pronounce SCSI as "sexy."
What somebody intended is not the same thing as what actually happened.
Antifa doesn't refer to an organization that you could track that way.
These are mostly groups that were formed this year, in the USA, not in Germany or somewhere, and they haven't killed anybody.
You're a prime example of a nazi moron, talking big behind an Anonymous Coward screen!
http://webcache.googleusercont...
Nazis are the ones who give nazi salutes and get arrested for attempted murder and being felons in possession of firearms.
Antifa are the ones who fight said nazis with just batons and courage.
If you can't tell them apart, you're probably a nazi.
Wow, man. You need some sort of plugin to stop you if you're about to post drunk.
You did talk about the subject. You really did, just scroll up; not only are they your words, they should still be on your screen when you're looking at this thread. Durrrrrrrrr
Better Luck next Next Time. You're either a complete idiot, or you're passive-aggressively pretending you're too stupid to understand. Is there a difference? I mean, if you disagree with me, that's fine. But you're not even comprehending the points you purport to disagree with!
Well, if 2% of Tesla's workforce was so bad it needed firing all at once, I'd say it's the management that was underperforming.
Exactly! When I saw that it said many of them were the highest paid for their positions, I instantly thought "team leads/managers." Exactly what you'd hope to see at this stage in the process when they were hiring so fast for so long; a culling of lame middle managers from every department. You can't cull the dud workers until after you cull the dud managers, or the dud managers will end up firing all the good workers to cover their own asses. This is a sign of good governance.
The whole concept of a "layoff" at a company that has pre-sold their entire manufacturing output for years and whose growth is only constrained by manufacturing output, it's just too silly for words. Are there really "nerds" this stupid, or do we have a lot of fake nerds around here these days?
I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.
I've also yet to meet an asshole fired for misbehavior who understands that being an asshole is poor performance. They almost invariably believe their performance was so divine that they have a Special Right of Asshole.
I'm guessing a lot of the people who claim that "no performance reason was given" were in fact told a performance reason related to behavior and they just can't comprehend that anything other than widgets per hour is a performance metric.
No, you simply failed to comprehend my point, and yet you replied to it anyways.
Better luck next time, and don't worry, if you manage to comprehend what I say and give a response that shows you understood the words before deciding you disagree, I'll be happy to respond to whatever you said. But if, as here, you just totally ignore what I said and respond as if you only read every third word, then I'll only respond to remind that words have meaning, and you don't know what that meaning is because you didn't read it carefully.
You're derping all over yourself, the treaty is symmetrical, neither side could possibly have "rolled over."
You seem to totally fail to comprehend the phrase, "rolled over." It means they didn't want to do it, but did because of pressure. Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend that what the UK signs extradition treaties, it does so because it thinks they're a good idea? How fucking hard is that?
That fact is the same regardless of if you personally approve of extradition treaties or not, because nobody is claiming that the decision was yours to make.
What a fucking moron. I mean, your conclusions are also stupid but who cares? You can't even comprehend if you're the Queen of England, or not.
Right, that's not rolling over, that's what the treaty says to do.
Can you please try to at least have the IQ of a pair of shoes?
It doesn't have to be something that is illegal in the UK! That has nothing to do with it. Things that are legal in the UK and illegal in the US are not automatically things where you can flee from the US authorities and hide in the UK and be protected by their government. That is just plain stupid, and that's why we have the treaties.
That's the whole fucking point. It was illegal in the US, and the US informed the UK of that fact, and so the UK granted the extradition. That's the process. The only real consideration is regarding the death penalty; the punishment has to be a legal type of punishment in both countries. So the UK doesn't do execution, so the US has to promise not to execute the person. That's it, that's all. Being sent to prison for a long sentence on a felony is a totally normal and legal punishment in the UK. It doesn't matter if the punishments for individual crimes is different.
If the US asks the UK to extradite a person, the UK courts are only looking at: is the accused person the same person that they are trying to extradite or is it maybe the wrong person with the same name; are they accused of a US crime; did the US document properly their claim of having evidence to present to the US courts that could prove the accusation; and will they face execution as a possible punishment?
That's it. Nothing is being proven other than identity. Nothing is being weighed. The paperwork is being checked for completeness. The case might be weak. No problem. The conduct might have been legal if it had been done in the UK. No problem. The crime might even have been committed on a computer system or financial system located in the US, by a person acting over a communication network from the UK. Again, no problem! The evidence might not even exist, it might just be a lie by the prosecutor; even that would not be a problem, because extradition weighs the documented promise that evidence exists, not the evidence itself.
Sure, sure, but only for very small values of "we."
Well, laundered money ends up being counted multiple times. That's the whole point; you create fake transactions and put the dirty money in it, pay taxes on it, and make it clean. If you have multiple stages in order to obscure the true nature of the transactions, you're counting it multiple times.
How much of that $42B in "volume" was taxable income? Divide that by 3, and that's how much actual economic activity you should expect was represented.
Remember also: a lot of bitcoin gets moved around just to bundle and rebundle it and hide the transaction history; no money is being made and no actual economic activity is happening, but those bookkeeping methods increase the total sum of transactions done on an exchange.
Don't be overly credulous of numbers; the misleading numbers have meaning too, and they might only be misleading because they mean something different than you anticipated. Wait for the meaning behind the numbers, and use that directly.
No need to worry over the absolute that was stated, obviously it was hyperbole.
The point is, most of the bitcoin market is illegal items. A few businesses accept bitcoin and a few customers use it. They haven't been burned by it yet, so they will continue to for now. Maybe it is really true that you spend lots of bitcoin, or maybe it is really true that you accepted a bunch of questionable payment instruments and you've converted a small fraction of them to goods and services, but you are also sitting on a pile of financial instruments with uncertain future value. And the vast majority of the trade that they are good for is contraband.
The real key problem though is that it means it is just a transactional currency; if you sell a bunch of units, the price of units goes down rapidly because there is no latent demand at all; all the demand is based on the transactions.
Which is to say, the value of the goods sold in dollars is the same regardless of if the price is 1 bitcoin or 10 bitcoin. If you try to dump a bunch on the market, the price goes down, as soon as the product sellers realize it happened their prices change; they might even have a computerized system that sets the price of the items based on the exchange rate they can get.
The high bitcoin value is based on this transactional nature, and lots of new people coming into the system. Lots of criminals were using cash still a year ago and are using bitcoin now. Supply is constrained both by the design of the currency, and also by hoarding. So the price will drift up depending how many new people are coming in. And later when it peaks the prices will stabilize because people really just want dollars at both ends; they want to spend dollars and receive dollars, but they want to hide the transaction.
End result, for the hoarders the price is mostly fake; it is a real price that they can get by selling small quantities, but attempts to cash out will crash the price. And there is no real inherent value to correct after that, so it just normalizes and resets and drifts up as people enter the market.
the UK, which is notorious for granting extradition requests to the US.
You're part of a very small minority of people who consider that following bilateral treaties with allied countries is a source of notoriety.
Actually, it is a significant matter of historical accuracy and how to communicate about these types of things; society is still working this sort of thing out.
When a person changes their name, you're expected to use their new name; but it is not uniformly true that you still use their new name when discussing actions in the past. In many situations people use the information that was true at the time that they're speaking of to speak about the things that happened at that time, and they consider it to be distorting history to alter historical facts to match later changes.
And then other people say yes, you should always alter historical facts. And if somebody wants to research the history of Muhammad Ali, you're not allowed to tell anybody that he used to have a different name, unless it is only to talk about why he changed his name. And then when they look up old newspaper stories on microfilm, they just have to have the Secret Knowledge if they want to understand who is who.
Same here, I guess. If you want to look up historical reports, you just have to have the Secret Knowledge about what the facts were at the time, and then you just destructively edit the historical references and quotes so that they assert facts from a later time.
Time will tell if these proposed cultural changes happen. ;)
Not only is he in defacto jail now, but when he finally leaves he has to stay in the UK and receive his spanking for violating court orders!
The bitcoin price is an interesting thing, but is it possible to actually sell very much at that price? Surely that price is based on new entrants using it as a short term exchange medium, and at the other end people are mostly stockpiling their profits because of the perceived increase in value. I mean, the currency has long term price deflation built in; new currency is harder to create than new products or services, so the currency value increases over time causing prices to decrease. This guarantees hoarding, but what happens if somebody tries to sell a large amount? If the price drops, then people realize their hoard values are just high scores on a screen, and the real money that they can get is highly constrained. Then everybody wants out at the same time.
If you can get somebody to sell you price insurance on the bitcoin, and also accept payment in bitcoin, then you could build a good strategy; if the insurance company is solid enough, anyways.
The UK tends to roll over to US extradition requests pretty easily.
See, that is just a really stupid and ignorant thing to say.
"Roll over" implies they responded to some sort of pressure, and did something they wouldn't otherwise do. But that is a blatant lie; the UK is in fact pleased to have an extradition treaty with the US! There is no "rolling over" to grant a legitimate extradition request; please note also that none was ever requested! The whole idea of extradition in this case is not based on facts; it is purely and completely based on a perceived sense of guilt by an active fugitive from justice.
And extradition isn't something you even can "roll over" on; the only requirement is that they completed the paperwork correctly and claim to have evidence that, if true, would prove a violation of US law. Everything else about it would be ruled on by the US justice system, which is entirely capable of determining if there is evidence of a crime and if there is evidence of a party's guilt.
Just because you hate the US government shouldn't stop you from understanding that the UK's government is actually friends with the US, and have similar legal systems that show each other mutual respect and confidence.