> the weight has no direct correlation with the rolling resistance
Assuming high-school physics then, sure. Otherwise, while not really significant, weight impacts resistance where things like the tires compress and bearings have greater friction applied. It's not likely to be significant but it is certainly some. In a perfect world where things like the the tires do not compress due to weight than, sure. I'd say things like the tire compressing and added friction on the bearings are both directly correlated with the weight.
It is (I've not done the math) likely a fairly insignificant amount but it's certainly a direct correlation with weight and 'rolling resistance.' Even a steel-on-steel surface would likely have some increased resistance due to weight - though much less directly associated with it. The weight might increase vibration or even cause minuscule deflections in the rolling surface like a railroad track. Sure, that'd be pretty damned minute, but it would exist and be something to account for - if one wanted to be anal.
Note, this in no way really matters. As far as I know, the impact is really trivial and insignificant - and can be lessened. I'm merely adding this for completeness and to be argumentative, a little. I *might* be mistaken but I don't think I am?
> At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull".
There still is. They do oxen, horses, tractors, and trucks. I'm sure they do more. I've had the chance to see all of the ones that I've mentioned. The ox are kind of cool and they make some decent money if they win. The horses are pretty neat too. The ons that I know, I know personally and they're actually working animals but that is a long story. I'm not much for the tractors or the trucks but they seem to have quite a following and are willing to spend quite a bit of money on their hobbies. Some of the after-market gear that goes into them is kind of impressive, almost as impressive as the language used when someone blows a $25,000 engine on their first time out.
Yes, yes I do know some rednecks. They're mostly harmless and good people. I can't say that I'm as enthralled as some of them are with their various hobbies but they're not so interested in my hobbies either.
A lady who used to work for me drove a little tiny Renault. A buddy and I would often pick up the back of her car and turn it sideways in the parking space. We didn't need any help for it or anything and we were able to easily pick it up - presumably the tank was either full or near full multiple times. Sometimes there wouldn't be much space so we'd have to pick up the front and move it a little and then do the rear end.
Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc... You really don't have less unless you wanted to, some localized fluctuations come into play but in those areas you have more externally and those things also cost money/resources.
I've seen a pony that would sit like a dog and ate pork chops. I've seen a miniature horse (which is not a pony) and bet on them when they were pulling sulkies - I was at an OTB facility. I'm not sure I want your pony. I guess, I'll just take the land and you can keep the pony.
Oh, I acknowledge that they do but do you expect more from a retard than you do from someone that claims they're a genius? I'm not seeing why this is too complicated for you to understand. At this point, I'm going to assume it's willful on your part. I've a limited number of posts per day and if you've other questions you're free to await another time but it should be fairly easy to understand. I've not written this with any great complexity or used any big words. I think you might be just writing to be argumentative and pretend it's complicated or desiring to read more into an analogy than was intended. If someone uses a car analogy to describe a computer, they are in no way inferring that the computer is a means for transportation.
Just a little while later, it is $413.61. An interesting thing I noticed, it's now on XE.com. However, that fluctuation isn't really a good thing I suspect. That's worth about 2/3 the value that mine were at when I donated them all to EFF.
People aren't going to want to deal with the immediacy required if it's an exchange of value unless that's smoothly done. In theory (perhaps in practice) you can end up having paid more (or less) than the product is worth due to just the time taken for the transaction to complete. That's going to (probably) have to change if wide acceptance is the goal.
For better or worse, there's the social stigma associated and the volatility as barriers to acceptance by some. I've no idea how to fix that. I'd mined a bunch and then forgotten them. I remembered when the topic came up a few days in a row. I went and found the box, hooked it back up, and had mined 48 of them. I decided I'd find someone to donate them to, as opposed to being taxed on them and accepting any stigma associated with them, and in the time it took me to find someone that accepted them and make the donations they'd fluctuated in value from about $650 each to $575 each and then back up to nearly the first amount. I checked a week later and they were down to something like $400 each.
Does Bitcoin get the credit or does DigiCash get it?
There are some big similarities with the two and some huge differences AND Chaum's DigiCash was a horrific failure but, like most things, BitCoin isn't really all that original a concept. I seem to recall that crypto.me has an interesting write-up but I'm way too lazy to go look for it. From there, you can dig into it a bit more but much of what Bitcoin does was in the lab many years ago. Some of it made it into the real world.
One of which did not make it very far was the ability to do something like pay a small amount to websites in the form of donations or just pay-to-view. A part of me wishes that had been an option for some. At least I don't *think* I'm conflating Chaum with another person? I could be. I'm not sure what he's up to but he was back in the news not too long ago for something or other. A chat application, I think.
> Why do you think that matters? No government stange behind gold. Conversely, the government of a real country stood behind the famous Zimbabwe dollar.
It matters for practicality. One can reasonably expect a vendor to accept currency backed by a modern, secure, State. One can expect reasonable stability in a currency from a modern sustained State. One can reasonably expect that State to back that currency, which means that one can be reasonably sure that they'll get a similar value from it over an extended period, a period longer than something that fluctuates as wildly as a currency being treated as investment coupled with the speculation that goes along with it.
Why'd you ask? You know those things. It's not binary, alternative currencies certainly have a place but, at this time, they're certainly not ready to the exclusion of all other currencies in practical terms for practical people. That may change in the future but that is not the current reality. There's no reason to be delusional about it nor is there any call to set up a dichotomy.
Reading their post doesn't indicate, to me at least, that they're in any way indicating that you can't use it. They're merely indicating why others may not choose to. I'm not sure why you'd take offense at such or go to the extremes of pointing out nonsense like Zimbabwe's failures as if that's salient. We both know that they're certainly not referencing currencies from instable governments and needing to add the obvious is how you end up with posts the length of mine - and we all know nobody wants that.
Them: "Green vegetables are not healthy." You: "They're not if you eat nothing but green vegetables!" Me: "While that's true, surely you had something better to add, usually you do. Are you somehow against green vegetables?"
Sheesh... Fan of crypto-currencies or something? I did not know you were. It's okay - you can come out of the closet. I mined a bunch when they came out and rather than realize the assets (and associated stigma) I donated them to the EFF when they re-entered my memory as I'd completely forgotten that I'd had a few VMs set up as mining boxes and then turned the system off and moved it to make room for something else.
I'd speculate that more Windows licenses get sold on more higher end computers than Apple will ever realize. It's probably the market leader on high-end computers that come with an operating system installed. The laptop that I'm using to type this has greater capacity than any Apple device ever made and Windows was an option when I bought it.
I could probably find the numbers somewhere but one of those sites that aggregates benchmarks should demonstrate it. There are certainly much more robust hardware being sold than even comes with Microsoft Windows but those don't often come with an operating system installed and one is probably unlikely to use such as a general purpose computer.
That doesn't mean that Apple doesn't make nice appliances and computers or that they don't have nice hardware, it's just that you seem to think they're the only option because (perhaps?) you've only been exposed to limited devices. Even HP, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc. all sell fine hardware. They probably all sell those models at a greater number than all but the appliances Apple sells - unless Apple has increased their general purpose computer sales at a rate that hasn't made the tech news sites.
As I recall, more people are already using Windows 10 than use OS X. Those who would have purchased the Walmart computers have transitioned to appliances and the sales of computers have dropped off a great bit. I'm not really sure that your claim hold water. A site with benchmarks might "prove" this but that's also selection biased (people who buy inexpensive or disposable computers probably aren't benchmarking them) so I'm not sure where to get these numbers in the first place?
At any rate, the vast majority of people that I know are neither using disposable computers nor OS X.
Credit where credit is due... Soylent News excels at thorough summaries. The resulting threads are not the best but they're pretty good at the summary part.
I'm not sure how one interprets expecting little to nothing from the average elected official on the right while expecting the left to demonstrate their touted intellectualism is antagonistic towards them. They made their claims and portrayed their image. Do it.
I expect the right to be Bible thumping, nationalistic, greedy, primal capitalists, who are self-centered and motivated by self-interest. They perform as I expect and, for the most part, as they portray themselves. I see far less hypocrisy on the right than I see on the left. I imagine that it's difficult to be objective if you're attached.
You're also reading a whole lot into an analogy, not really a metaphor I don't believe, than intended.
And I'd have no idea why one would look down on those who serve in retail however, I'd not expect that to be a preferred end unless, of course, they were paid reasonable wages.
So yes, as I have said many times, I hold the left to higher standards because I expect better from them. That's a statement more about the right than it is about the left and it would be excellent if they held themselves to higher standards, were more honest with themselves and others, and if those elected would actually do some of that serving thing.
You'd give up your kingdom for a mod point? Either ethereal e-penis has increased in value or the value of kingdoms has decreased significantly! No wonder nobody has kingdoms any more, they're trading them away for pennies on the dollar!
I'll give you my whole account, in fine standing, for a kingdom! Hell, I'll make you a second and third one if you happen to have more kingdoms. A single person has got to be worth more than a mod point! (I can't say for certain, I've never tried to buy a person.)
I do recall a book titled Magic Kingdom for Sale - Sold, or something along those lines. I think it was part of the Landover Series (or something like that) which hadn't come out when I read it and I've not read any of the ones that came after it, but I think I saw them in a bookstore. I miss bookstores. Impulse buys had a quality all their own and going by recommendations just isn't the same. I capitalized heavily on the going-out-of-business sales.
Now, about that kingdom you're trading for a mod point... What's in it? Anything good? You're certainly part of that kingdom, you've gotta be worth something that is of greater value than a Slashdot post. Got a wife? Kids? Land? A horse? 'Cause I know people... I'll get you a mod point!;-)
Define subsidizing and then show how it is different in any other country for 7 out of 10 of your claims. (The government purchasing something for its own needs is not subsidizing.)
I've seen their posts before and I do not think it is sarcasm. I am not sure what they're trying to accomplish but it means taxing someone so surely it's good?
This is a guess and not an accusation but I suspect that the tax would not involve anything they're currently involved in or intend to be involved in at some future time. I'd further suspect that they're not intimate with anyone that would be impacted by this particular tax.
It's similar, but not exactly alike, to those who rail against the 1%. When you point out that they are in the global 1% then they either change that to mean a subset of the population or they change it to the.2%. Another, more amusing to me, example is those that rail against corporations. When you point out that EFF, FSF, and The Linux Foundation are all corporations (more fun after getting them to confirm that they do, indeed, mean *all* corporations) usually gets some interesting responses that amount to, "Fuck you, you know what I meant." No, no I didn't know what they meant and I've no idea why they want to take away the rights of people to form a legally recognized group while also holding the view that unions are acceptable. My guess is that it's that they only want groups of people that they agree with but that's still just speculation and a topic for another day and another thread.
At any rate, I don't see a hint of sarcasm. Everyone wants someone to pay more, either to pay for something they don't want to pay for or to curtail a liberty they're not currently taking advantage of. Self-interest is, after all, a human trait and a probable result of evolution. Self-sacrifice looks good on paper but means you're first into the lion's den. Pragmatism has its place, as does moderation.
Given your name and previous comments, do you think that China will reach a point where they have more automobile owners? I've been to China few times and one of the things that I've noticed is a whole of automobiles there now. I mean, a lot. Even if you get outside of the main areas and tourist traps, there's still a lot more automobiles than I recollect.
Also of note, it's interesting how many Western automobiles I noticed there the last time I visited. I don't have numbers or research to back me up (I've not bothered looking) but there are an increasing number of American and, to some extent, German automobiles. Oddly, or perhaps not, I can't say that I noticed a whole lot of Japanese automobiles. Or, at least not an increase in them and not a whole lot to begin with. (I'm an automotive enthusiast.)
But, they've got a lot of people and everyone seems interested in buying a car. I'm told that it's rather expensive and that there are some restrictions - important considering the quality of the air, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them. Do you think this trend will continue? Does it have room to continue? They've really, really (or I may just be misinterpreting or something) increased the number of automobiles - the traffic is rather intense.
Disclosure: I am technically retired but I do have business interests and investments (several) in China that I will *not* discuss here except to say that they're coming along nicely and they're not the least bit interested in taking away any American jobs, for what it's worth.
Thanks. Another AC came along and put the 'rules' up there for me. It makes sense and I appreciate the answer. No, I'm not kidding. I really do appreciate the answer and there's a good chance that it will reflect in my future usages. I've never really minded the Grammar Nazis, though I can see why other folks would. Other folks don't have the same needs and wants as I and are entitled to their own views.
My goal is to communicate and that means that I should do my best to ensure that I'm doing so properly. Grammar Nazis* do not necessarily realize it but I view their responses as being informative or outright helpful. Though, sometimes they're wrong and I know enough to see that they're giving erroneous correction. I mind erroneous correction more than I mind errors but that's a topic for another day.
[*] The term Grammar Nazi, in this case, does not refer to the person who made the correction to my post. I'm not quite certain how to describe them but that AC does not meet the criteria. It was a welcomed correction, done politely enough for me, and was correct. I actually *do* appreciate them and the effort/time it took to make their post. Grammar Nazis may not add anything to the current discussion but they certainly aid future discussions. They're a valuable asset to the community. I've seen enough horrific language butchering to know that I've neither time nor inclination to correct others and I appreciate those who do, so long as they keep it to a dull roar.
Reach in your pocket and pull out your smart phone. Do a little math. Go back 25 years. Apply the math needed to own (not access, but own) that much compute power. Now adjust it for inflation.
Do the same thing with your automobile, house - including furnishings, education, gadgets, entertainment, and more...
I get a kick out of the people who decry us as having less than the previous generation and being unduly burdened by it.
I know, I know... It goes against the narrative and we humans are disinclined to be grateful and objective. We're having such a hard time at life yet we always have. We enjoy greater luxuries at lower prices and with greater availability. We cherry-pick our data points like a skeptic picks at climate change dates. We look at a brief period of time, typically post WWII, and choose select points to control the narrative while forgetting the dates prior. We selectively pick (perhaps not even consciously) our memories and beliefs.
We're humans. We're not rational beings, we're rationalizing beings. So it has always been and the future doesn't look to be all that different.
"My father only had to work one job!" "Your father didn't feel an obligation to buy a supercomputer to carry around in his pocket or a new car every five years."
"My educated was 7 times more expensive than my dad's!" "Your father didn't attend a school with those physical assets, have to employ those people who felt a need to carry a supercomputer in their pocket and drive a new car every five years, and didn't have access to a logarithmically expanding source of information that needed to be sorted, indexed, and made accessible."
I could go on but I'd be wasting your time and mine. There's no need for me to preach to the choir. Oddly, there are people (I've had this conversation before) who will still try to argue it - and passionately do so. No... You're in great shape, collectively speaking. The sky is not falling, not yet.
To remain topical, this treaty has some very concerning parts in it (I've read a good portion of the copy that NZ put online and will probably finish reading it soon - it's huge and confusing) and it certainly has some very disturbing parts that, from my laymen's view, have great potential for abuse. Right or wrong, the result of this *may* be that it does uplift impoverished people. I think we need to be reminded of that as it is probably why those on the left support it. They've been emoting their way towards this for a long time, regardless of revisionist history, and are happily aided by those who favor increased greed.
Observation: The folks who were not doing well are actually doing better but those at the top seem to be skimming quite a bit off that could probably have gone to better uses. It looks like greater disparity in wealth when you look at it from a middle-class view. From a lower-class view, it looks like an increase in one's own wealth. Most folks see things from their own view and few people take a look at things like the population numbers locally or world-wide.
Sorry(ish) for the novella but that does not easily fit on a bumper sticker and pithy sayings don't convey the content.
Thank you. I appreciate the time and effort you put into that and it makes sense. I'm (generally) looking to improve my writing skills. I don't even mind those who point out mistakes just to be trolls. In fact, I kind of appreciate them as they give me greater motivation to improve.
I certainly make mistakes and am far from perfect but I do make an effort (even for posts on Slashdot) to write properly as the goal is to accurately convey information in an agreed upon format (communicate) and not just to rant, rave, argue, fight, or stroke my ego. That may seem like a foreign concept to some of us but, alas, I opt to be an exception. I learn many things from Slashdot, if I did not then I would not be here.
So, I am not kidding when I say thanks nor is this the first time I have done so. I doubt it will be the last. I, for one, appreciate the help.
I've been saying something for a long time and, slowly but surely, it's coming to the point where it is reaching fruition - which is not a good thing and does not even stroke my ego...
"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"
As a lark, I just Googled that. They find three mentions, two on Slashdot, and one by someone on a site for crazy people. (No, really...) Their quote seems to predate the two it found for me but, if you'll accept my word, I've been saying this for years.
Let's try to put this into some perspective...
A lot of people like to blame the political right for the trend to off-shore stuff and to move industry out to cheaper countries. That's revisionist history. See, it was the political left who had the mantra of a rising tide raising all ships. This was some time back, in the 1980s as I recall but maybe a little later. I was discussing this with someone, unfortunately I do not recall the situation or environment, and they actually had the temerity to speculate that we'd see a rise in service industry jobs and that was a good counter to the idea of off-shoring our manufacturing and mass-importation of goods at costs impossible to produce in societies that paid their citizens wages that were acceptable. I was baffled.
My response to them was, and it still stands, this:
"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"
Now, to touch on the above with the political left and the revisionist history. The left, and their emotional outbursts, were the start of this trend. To which the business owners, now very much on the political right in many cases, said, "Wait, what? You want to let us do what, exactly? Oh, fuck yeah... Hell yeah, let's do some pillaging."
People look as far back as that and say that the fault is on the right. I say, if you give a junkie a rig full of heroin and he shoots up and dies, you share not just culpability but primary culpability and the junkie can be forgiven for being an addict. The political left prepositions themselves as the intellectual elite and holding the moral high ground. Thus, they're held to higher standards, at least by me.
And no, I'm not really on the political right either. I'm just pragmatic. I've not seen you post much lately, hopefully you'll see this.
Why, oh why, is the root TLD (32bit.com) to your homepage a bulk mailing software company?
Email marketing is a process that is extremely intricate. It boasts of various aspects. As a matter of fact, the more expansive an email marketing campaign is the more complicated and hard to manage it is going to be. Looking at the needs of various businesses operating on the internet, we have created an email marketing compendium perfectly suited for all types of businesses and campaigns.
Err... Were they something else? 'Cause your subdomain doesn't work. Were they some sort of free hosting company or something? I seriously can't imagine someone displaying a link, of any kind, to a bulk-mailer on Slashdot.
I know this is OT but this is the only way to make sure you've actually noticed this and are doing so knowingly. I can't possibly imagine a time when you'd want to associate yourself with that particular breed of software so I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here. On the other hand, if you did so intentionally then, by all means, have at it.
> Only the desire for favoritism can justify the reelection of corrupt politicians.
Stupidity. You forgot stupidity. Unfortunate that it is, it is justification. It's a bit perverse but I take some pleasure in being able to say that I first voted in the presidential elections in 1978 and I have only once voted for the candidate that won. My one vote for a winning candidate turned out to be pretty stupid. I regret that. I voted for Clinton's second term - it seemed the logical thing to do. It turns out that I'd have been better off, or a more whole person I suppose, if I'd done my usual thing of just throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate.
I don't think the TPP has provisions for open borders? I've actually read (but not completed) the giant friggen' document that NZ was kind enough to upload and share via the 'net. Don't read it... You probably won't understand it (not intended as a slight - I've not got the foggiest about what they speak of in a few places and I've researched others) and it will just piss you off in the parts you do understand.
See, I figured if I want to bitch about it then I should know what I'm talking about, or at least have some understanding. I know... I know... Comprehension is overrated. However, I was brought up and have lived this way my whole life and it's something I'm disinclined to change. Yes, it means I'm far less outraged about many things and often caution waiting for the facts but it also means I don't (generally) have to eat crow. Or, like some others, just forget that I was mistaken and pretend it didn't happen and that the outrage, while completely wrong, is still somehow justified when, and if, called on it. It'd be easier, people have short memories.
And, for the record, there are a number of things to be bothered by, both in the process and in the proposal. I'm a huge fan of maintaining as many liberties as is reasonable. I know, I know that too... It's certainly an archaic idea but I'm old... But, this goes against some very basic ideas that people mistakenly refer to as freedom. While freedom and liberties are similar, they are not actually synonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta be honest here... That's a fuck of a lot better than any robot that I've made. How about you, what is the power:weight ratio for your robot?
Wait, what?
Are you telling me that I've been doing it... wrong?
> the weight has no direct correlation with the rolling resistance
Assuming high-school physics then, sure. Otherwise, while not really significant, weight impacts resistance where things like the tires compress and bearings have greater friction applied. It's not likely to be significant but it is certainly some. In a perfect world where things like the the tires do not compress due to weight than, sure. I'd say things like the tire compressing and added friction on the bearings are both directly correlated with the weight.
It is (I've not done the math) likely a fairly insignificant amount but it's certainly a direct correlation with weight and 'rolling resistance.' Even a steel-on-steel surface would likely have some increased resistance due to weight - though much less directly associated with it. The weight might increase vibration or even cause minuscule deflections in the rolling surface like a railroad track. Sure, that'd be pretty damned minute, but it would exist and be something to account for - if one wanted to be anal.
Note, this in no way really matters. As far as I know, the impact is really trivial and insignificant - and can be lessened. I'm merely adding this for completeness and to be argumentative, a little. I *might* be mistaken but I don't think I am?
> At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull".
There still is. They do oxen, horses, tractors, and trucks. I'm sure they do more. I've had the chance to see all of the ones that I've mentioned. The ox are kind of cool and they make some decent money if they win. The horses are pretty neat too. The ons that I know, I know personally and they're actually working animals but that is a long story. I'm not much for the tractors or the trucks but they seem to have quite a following and are willing to spend quite a bit of money on their hobbies. Some of the after-market gear that goes into them is kind of impressive, almost as impressive as the language used when someone blows a $25,000 engine on their first time out.
Yes, yes I do know some rednecks. They're mostly harmless and good people. I can't say that I'm as enthralled as some of them are with their various hobbies but they're not so interested in my hobbies either.
A lady who used to work for me drove a little tiny Renault. A buddy and I would often pick up the back of her car and turn it sideways in the parking space. We didn't need any help for it or anything and we were able to easily pick it up - presumably the tank was either full or near full multiple times. Sometimes there wouldn't be much space so we'd have to pick up the front and move it a little and then do the rear end.
Hmm... It might have been an Opel.
Compare the housing's R value, the quality of materials in it, the design, the tools used to build it, the specs it meets, the wiring, the outlets, the electrical panel, the plumbing, etc... You really don't have less unless you wanted to, some localized fluctuations come into play but in those areas you have more externally and those things also cost money/resources.
I've seen a pony that would sit like a dog and ate pork chops. I've seen a miniature horse (which is not a pony) and bet on them when they were pulling sulkies - I was at an OTB facility. I'm not sure I want your pony. I guess, I'll just take the land and you can keep the pony.
Oh, I acknowledge that they do but do you expect more from a retard than you do from someone that claims they're a genius? I'm not seeing why this is too complicated for you to understand. At this point, I'm going to assume it's willful on your part. I've a limited number of posts per day and if you've other questions you're free to await another time but it should be fairly easy to understand. I've not written this with any great complexity or used any big words. I think you might be just writing to be argumentative and pretend it's complicated or desiring to read more into an analogy than was intended. If someone uses a car analogy to describe a computer, they are in no way inferring that the computer is a means for transportation.
Just a little while later, it is $413.61. An interesting thing I noticed, it's now on XE.com. However, that fluctuation isn't really a good thing I suspect. That's worth about 2/3 the value that mine were at when I donated them all to EFF.
People aren't going to want to deal with the immediacy required if it's an exchange of value unless that's smoothly done. In theory (perhaps in practice) you can end up having paid more (or less) than the product is worth due to just the time taken for the transaction to complete. That's going to (probably) have to change if wide acceptance is the goal.
For better or worse, there's the social stigma associated and the volatility as barriers to acceptance by some. I've no idea how to fix that. I'd mined a bunch and then forgotten them. I remembered when the topic came up a few days in a row. I went and found the box, hooked it back up, and had mined 48 of them. I decided I'd find someone to donate them to, as opposed to being taxed on them and accepting any stigma associated with them, and in the time it took me to find someone that accepted them and make the donations they'd fluctuated in value from about $650 each to $575 each and then back up to nearly the first amount. I checked a week later and they were down to something like $400 each.
Does Bitcoin get the credit or does DigiCash get it?
There are some big similarities with the two and some huge differences AND Chaum's DigiCash was a horrific failure but, like most things, BitCoin isn't really all that original a concept. I seem to recall that crypto.me has an interesting write-up but I'm way too lazy to go look for it. From there, you can dig into it a bit more but much of what Bitcoin does was in the lab many years ago. Some of it made it into the real world.
One of which did not make it very far was the ability to do something like pay a small amount to websites in the form of donations or just pay-to-view. A part of me wishes that had been an option for some. At least I don't *think* I'm conflating Chaum with another person? I could be. I'm not sure what he's up to but he was back in the news not too long ago for something or other. A chat application, I think.
> Why do you think that matters? No government stange behind gold. Conversely, the government of a real country stood behind the famous Zimbabwe dollar.
It matters for practicality. One can reasonably expect a vendor to accept currency backed by a modern, secure, State. One can expect reasonable stability in a currency from a modern sustained State. One can reasonably expect that State to back that currency, which means that one can be reasonably sure that they'll get a similar value from it over an extended period, a period longer than something that fluctuates as wildly as a currency being treated as investment coupled with the speculation that goes along with it.
Why'd you ask? You know those things. It's not binary, alternative currencies certainly have a place but, at this time, they're certainly not ready to the exclusion of all other currencies in practical terms for practical people. That may change in the future but that is not the current reality. There's no reason to be delusional about it nor is there any call to set up a dichotomy.
Reading their post doesn't indicate, to me at least, that they're in any way indicating that you can't use it. They're merely indicating why others may not choose to. I'm not sure why you'd take offense at such or go to the extremes of pointing out nonsense like Zimbabwe's failures as if that's salient. We both know that they're certainly not referencing currencies from instable governments and needing to add the obvious is how you end up with posts the length of mine - and we all know nobody wants that.
Them: "Green vegetables are not healthy."
You: "They're not if you eat nothing but green vegetables!"
Me: "While that's true, surely you had something better to add, usually you do. Are you somehow against green vegetables?"
Sheesh... Fan of crypto-currencies or something? I did not know you were. It's okay - you can come out of the closet. I mined a bunch when they came out and rather than realize the assets (and associated stigma) I donated them to the EFF when they re-entered my memory as I'd completely forgotten that I'd had a few VMs set up as mining boxes and then turned the system off and moved it to make room for something else.
> MSFT is largely old [sic] on such devices,
I'd speculate that more Windows licenses get sold on more higher end computers than Apple will ever realize. It's probably the market leader on high-end computers that come with an operating system installed. The laptop that I'm using to type this has greater capacity than any Apple device ever made and Windows was an option when I bought it.
I could probably find the numbers somewhere but one of those sites that aggregates benchmarks should demonstrate it. There are certainly much more robust hardware being sold than even comes with Microsoft Windows but those don't often come with an operating system installed and one is probably unlikely to use such as a general purpose computer.
That doesn't mean that Apple doesn't make nice appliances and computers or that they don't have nice hardware, it's just that you seem to think they're the only option because (perhaps?) you've only been exposed to limited devices. Even HP, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc. all sell fine hardware. They probably all sell those models at a greater number than all but the appliances Apple sells - unless Apple has increased their general purpose computer sales at a rate that hasn't made the tech news sites.
As I recall, more people are already using Windows 10 than use OS X. Those who would have purchased the Walmart computers have transitioned to appliances and the sales of computers have dropped off a great bit. I'm not really sure that your claim hold water. A site with benchmarks might "prove" this but that's also selection biased (people who buy inexpensive or disposable computers probably aren't benchmarking them) so I'm not sure where to get these numbers in the first place?
At any rate, the vast majority of people that I know are neither using disposable computers nor OS X.
Credit where credit is due... Soylent News excels at thorough summaries. The resulting threads are not the best but they're pretty good at the summary part.
I'm not sure how one interprets expecting little to nothing from the average elected official on the right while expecting the left to demonstrate their touted intellectualism is antagonistic towards them. They made their claims and portrayed their image. Do it.
I expect the right to be Bible thumping, nationalistic, greedy, primal capitalists, who are self-centered and motivated by self-interest. They perform as I expect and, for the most part, as they portray themselves. I see far less hypocrisy on the right than I see on the left. I imagine that it's difficult to be objective if you're attached.
You're also reading a whole lot into an analogy, not really a metaphor I don't believe, than intended.
And I'd have no idea why one would look down on those who serve in retail however, I'd not expect that to be a preferred end unless, of course, they were paid reasonable wages.
So yes, as I have said many times, I hold the left to higher standards because I expect better from them. That's a statement more about the right than it is about the left and it would be excellent if they held themselves to higher standards, were more honest with themselves and others, and if those elected would actually do some of that serving thing.
You'd give up your kingdom for a mod point? Either ethereal e-penis has increased in value or the value of kingdoms has decreased significantly! No wonder nobody has kingdoms any more, they're trading them away for pennies on the dollar!
I'll give you my whole account, in fine standing, for a kingdom! Hell, I'll make you a second and third one if you happen to have more kingdoms. A single person has got to be worth more than a mod point! (I can't say for certain, I've never tried to buy a person.)
I do recall a book titled Magic Kingdom for Sale - Sold, or something along those lines. I think it was part of the Landover Series (or something like that) which hadn't come out when I read it and I've not read any of the ones that came after it, but I think I saw them in a bookstore. I miss bookstores. Impulse buys had a quality all their own and going by recommendations just isn't the same. I capitalized heavily on the going-out-of-business sales.
Now, about that kingdom you're trading for a mod point... What's in it? Anything good? You're certainly part of that kingdom, you've gotta be worth something that is of greater value than a Slashdot post. Got a wife? Kids? Land? A horse? 'Cause I know people... I'll get you a mod point! ;-)
Define subsidizing and then show how it is different in any other country for 7 out of 10 of your claims. (The government purchasing something for its own needs is not subsidizing.)
> Is this sarcasm?
I've seen their posts before and I do not think it is sarcasm. I am not sure what they're trying to accomplish but it means taxing someone so surely it's good?
This is a guess and not an accusation but I suspect that the tax would not involve anything they're currently involved in or intend to be involved in at some future time. I'd further suspect that they're not intimate with anyone that would be impacted by this particular tax.
It's similar, but not exactly alike, to those who rail against the 1%. When you point out that they are in the global 1% then they either change that to mean a subset of the population or they change it to the .2%. Another, more amusing to me, example is those that rail against corporations. When you point out that EFF, FSF, and The Linux Foundation are all corporations (more fun after getting them to confirm that they do, indeed, mean *all* corporations) usually gets some interesting responses that amount to, "Fuck you, you know what I meant." No, no I didn't know what they meant and I've no idea why they want to take away the rights of people to form a legally recognized group while also holding the view that unions are acceptable. My guess is that it's that they only want groups of people that they agree with but that's still just speculation and a topic for another day and another thread.
At any rate, I don't see a hint of sarcasm. Everyone wants someone to pay more, either to pay for something they don't want to pay for or to curtail a liberty they're not currently taking advantage of. Self-interest is, after all, a human trait and a probable result of evolution. Self-sacrifice looks good on paper but means you're first into the lion's den. Pragmatism has its place, as does moderation.
Given your name and previous comments, do you think that China will reach a point where they have more automobile owners? I've been to China few times and one of the things that I've noticed is a whole of automobiles there now. I mean, a lot. Even if you get outside of the main areas and tourist traps, there's still a lot more automobiles than I recollect.
Also of note, it's interesting how many Western automobiles I noticed there the last time I visited. I don't have numbers or research to back me up (I've not bothered looking) but there are an increasing number of American and, to some extent, German automobiles. Oddly, or perhaps not, I can't say that I noticed a whole lot of Japanese automobiles. Or, at least not an increase in them and not a whole lot to begin with. (I'm an automotive enthusiast.)
But, they've got a lot of people and everyone seems interested in buying a car. I'm told that it's rather expensive and that there are some restrictions - important considering the quality of the air, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them. Do you think this trend will continue? Does it have room to continue? They've really, really (or I may just be misinterpreting or something) increased the number of automobiles - the traffic is rather intense.
Disclosure: I am technically retired but I do have business interests and investments (several) in China that I will *not* discuss here except to say that they're coming along nicely and they're not the least bit interested in taking away any American jobs, for what it's worth.
Thanks. Another AC came along and put the 'rules' up there for me. It makes sense and I appreciate the answer. No, I'm not kidding. I really do appreciate the answer and there's a good chance that it will reflect in my future usages. I've never really minded the Grammar Nazis, though I can see why other folks would. Other folks don't have the same needs and wants as I and are entitled to their own views.
My goal is to communicate and that means that I should do my best to ensure that I'm doing so properly. Grammar Nazis* do not necessarily realize it but I view their responses as being informative or outright helpful. Though, sometimes they're wrong and I know enough to see that they're giving erroneous correction. I mind erroneous correction more than I mind errors but that's a topic for another day.
[*] The term Grammar Nazi, in this case, does not refer to the person who made the correction to my post. I'm not quite certain how to describe them but that AC does not meet the criteria. It was a welcomed correction, done politely enough for me, and was correct. I actually *do* appreciate them and the effort/time it took to make their post. Grammar Nazis may not add anything to the current discussion but they certainly aid future discussions. They're a valuable asset to the community. I've seen enough horrific language butchering to know that I've neither time nor inclination to correct others and I appreciate those who do, so long as they keep it to a dull roar.
To put it into perspective...
Reach in your pocket and pull out your smart phone. Do a little math. Go back 25 years. Apply the math needed to own (not access, but own) that much compute power. Now adjust it for inflation.
Do the same thing with your automobile, house - including furnishings, education, gadgets, entertainment, and more...
I get a kick out of the people who decry us as having less than the previous generation and being unduly burdened by it.
I know, I know... It goes against the narrative and we humans are disinclined to be grateful and objective. We're having such a hard time at life yet we always have. We enjoy greater luxuries at lower prices and with greater availability. We cherry-pick our data points like a skeptic picks at climate change dates. We look at a brief period of time, typically post WWII, and choose select points to control the narrative while forgetting the dates prior. We selectively pick (perhaps not even consciously) our memories and beliefs.
We're humans. We're not rational beings, we're rationalizing beings. So it has always been and the future doesn't look to be all that different.
"My father only had to work one job!"
"Your father didn't feel an obligation to buy a supercomputer to carry around in his pocket or a new car every five years."
"My educated was 7 times more expensive than my dad's!"
"Your father didn't attend a school with those physical assets, have to employ those people who felt a need to carry a supercomputer in their pocket and drive a new car every five years, and didn't have access to a logarithmically expanding source of information that needed to be sorted, indexed, and made accessible."
I could go on but I'd be wasting your time and mine. There's no need for me to preach to the choir. Oddly, there are people (I've had this conversation before) who will still try to argue it - and passionately do so. No... You're in great shape, collectively speaking. The sky is not falling, not yet.
To remain topical, this treaty has some very concerning parts in it (I've read a good portion of the copy that NZ put online and will probably finish reading it soon - it's huge and confusing) and it certainly has some very disturbing parts that, from my laymen's view, have great potential for abuse. Right or wrong, the result of this *may* be that it does uplift impoverished people. I think we need to be reminded of that as it is probably why those on the left support it. They've been emoting their way towards this for a long time, regardless of revisionist history, and are happily aided by those who favor increased greed.
Observation: The folks who were not doing well are actually doing better but those at the top seem to be skimming quite a bit off that could probably have gone to better uses. It looks like greater disparity in wealth when you look at it from a middle-class view. From a lower-class view, it looks like an increase in one's own wealth. Most folks see things from their own view and few people take a look at things like the population numbers locally or world-wide.
Sorry(ish) for the novella but that does not easily fit on a bumper sticker and pithy sayings don't convey the content.
Thank you. I appreciate the time and effort you put into that and it makes sense. I'm (generally) looking to improve my writing skills. I don't even mind those who point out mistakes just to be trolls. In fact, I kind of appreciate them as they give me greater motivation to improve.
I certainly make mistakes and am far from perfect but I do make an effort (even for posts on Slashdot) to write properly as the goal is to accurately convey information in an agreed upon format (communicate) and not just to rant, rave, argue, fight, or stroke my ego. That may seem like a foreign concept to some of us but, alas, I opt to be an exception. I learn many things from Slashdot, if I did not then I would not be here.
So, I am not kidding when I say thanks nor is this the first time I have done so. I doubt it will be the last. I, for one, appreciate the help.
I've been saying something for a long time and, slowly but surely, it's coming to the point where it is reaching fruition - which is not a good thing and does not even stroke my ego...
"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"
As a lark, I just Googled that. They find three mentions, two on Slashdot, and one by someone on a site for crazy people. (No, really...) Their quote seems to predate the two it found for me but, if you'll accept my word, I've been saying this for years.
Let's try to put this into some perspective...
A lot of people like to blame the political right for the trend to off-shore stuff and to move industry out to cheaper countries. That's revisionist history. See, it was the political left who had the mantra of a rising tide raising all ships. This was some time back, in the 1980s as I recall but maybe a little later. I was discussing this with someone, unfortunately I do not recall the situation or environment, and they actually had the temerity to speculate that we'd see a rise in service industry jobs and that was a good counter to the idea of off-shoring our manufacturing and mass-importation of goods at costs impossible to produce in societies that paid their citizens wages that were acceptable. I was baffled.
My response to them was, and it still stands, this:
"Welcome to America, can I take your order please?"
Now, to touch on the above with the political left and the revisionist history. The left, and their emotional outbursts, were the start of this trend. To which the business owners, now very much on the political right in many cases, said, "Wait, what? You want to let us do what, exactly? Oh, fuck yeah... Hell yeah, let's do some pillaging."
People look as far back as that and say that the fault is on the right. I say, if you give a junkie a rig full of heroin and he shoots up and dies, you share not just culpability but primary culpability and the junkie can be forgiven for being an addict. The political left prepositions themselves as the intellectual elite and holding the moral high ground. Thus, they're held to higher standards, at least by me.
And no, I'm not really on the political right either. I'm just pragmatic. I've not seen you post much lately, hopefully you'll see this.
Why, oh why, is the root TLD (32bit.com) to your homepage a bulk mailing software company?
Email marketing is a process that is extremely intricate. It boasts of various aspects. As a matter of fact, the more expansive an email marketing campaign is the more complicated and hard to manage it is going to be. Looking at the needs of various businesses operating on the internet, we have created an email marketing compendium perfectly suited for all types of businesses and campaigns.
Err... Were they something else? 'Cause your subdomain doesn't work. Were they some sort of free hosting company or something? I seriously can't imagine someone displaying a link, of any kind, to a bulk-mailer on Slashdot.
I know this is OT but this is the only way to make sure you've actually noticed this and are doing so knowingly. I can't possibly imagine a time when you'd want to associate yourself with that particular breed of software so I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here. On the other hand, if you did so intentionally then, by all means, have at it.
> Only the desire for favoritism can justify the reelection of corrupt politicians.
Stupidity. You forgot stupidity. Unfortunate that it is, it is justification. It's a bit perverse but I take some pleasure in being able to say that I first voted in the presidential elections in 1978 and I have only once voted for the candidate that won. My one vote for a winning candidate turned out to be pretty stupid. I regret that. I voted for Clinton's second term - it seemed the logical thing to do. It turns out that I'd have been better off, or a more whole person I suppose, if I'd done my usual thing of just throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate.
I don't think the TPP has provisions for open borders? I've actually read (but not completed) the giant friggen' document that NZ was kind enough to upload and share via the 'net. Don't read it... You probably won't understand it (not intended as a slight - I've not got the foggiest about what they speak of in a few places and I've researched others) and it will just piss you off in the parts you do understand.
See, I figured if I want to bitch about it then I should know what I'm talking about, or at least have some understanding. I know... I know... Comprehension is overrated. However, I was brought up and have lived this way my whole life and it's something I'm disinclined to change. Yes, it means I'm far less outraged about many things and often caution waiting for the facts but it also means I don't (generally) have to eat crow. Or, like some others, just forget that I was mistaken and pretend it didn't happen and that the outrage, while completely wrong, is still somehow justified when, and if, called on it. It'd be easier, people have short memories.
And, for the record, there are a number of things to be bothered by, both in the process and in the proposal. I'm a huge fan of maintaining as many liberties as is reasonable. I know, I know that too... It's certainly an archaic idea but I'm old... But, this goes against some very basic ideas that people mistakenly refer to as freedom. While freedom and liberties are similar, they are not actually synonymous.