I don't see anything in that post that I'd debate as being logically unsound or philosophically inconsistent. You might want to look at "Socialist Libertarian" when you get a minute, if you've not already done so. I liken them (and myself) to people who've reached similar conclusions based on logic and reason as opposed to emotion and the desire to control a population. There are, of course, zealots on all sides of the spectrum, I'd like to think I'm fairly moderate.
The subject of a standing military is debatable on a few different levels. War, today, is a complex affair should it take off on the scales seen in the past - even in the past 100 years. I could be reasoned into certain benefits being given to those who voluntarily subject themselves to a period of service - not necessarily in the military, with scaled benefits for each.
An example might be those who serve for a two year period are able to get access to health care, those that serve for four get school, those that serve for eight get a pension, etc... I'm not inclined to separate them all into rational values - that's just an example of how it might look. I'm sure we could have a fine debate on where those points should be. There would be obvious exceptions, those who are unable to serve would get the benefits regardless. Religious/conscious exemption would be covered by their not needing to serve in a combat role.
I've mulled that idea over and over for the past 25 years or so.
It does, indeed, sound a lot like I'm a socialist but, really, I just want your kids to be productive because that enables my kids to be more upwardly mobile. It's a win-win and I'm not altruistic. I do have strong leanings towards maximum liberties and the method to take advantage of those liberties is to have both free time, a safety net, and a moderate income. I can, now, enjoy my freedom more than I've ever been able to do so in the past. The reason for this is that I've now accumulated enough wealth to where I do not need to work, I do not need to curb my speech, I do not need to worry about reputation, and I don't need to worry about an income. There's some altruism in saying that I'd like more people to be in that position, ideally everyone - but that's not going to happen, but there's also the reality that it serves me better to have people in that position.
I hope that I expressed that well enough to be understood. Unfortunately, some deeper concepts don't fit well in 140 characters or on a bumper sticker. I am verbose, not articulate.
Hah! I bought something like that to look inside engines. It was a bit more pricey at the time but it was a trivial expense. I was actually kind of shocked at how cheap it was.
I don't know as that was a targeted ad - I was looking at tools and "customers who bought ____ also bought _____" made me click something, I clicked a few more things, and then eventually I found that and bought it. I got one with a light, it works better than I'd expected it to.
I am pretty sure those impeding laws only mean that you have to pull to the side of the road and allow traffic to pass at the nearest safe place - not that they failed to maintain a speed but they failed to allow people to pass. Additionally, you might recall that I said "almost all" (or similar verbiage). There are exceptions but they are few and exceedingly rare. The vast majority of collisions are caused by someone going too fast for the conditions. Yes, a mysterious magicked bunny might appear and put 100 nuns in your path and there will be no actions a human or a computer can take to avoid them. In that case, the fault lies with the bunny. Pretty much every other time, it's the fault of the person who was driving too quickly for the conditions.
I don't think I've disclosed this publicly but I'm a bit partial to E*Trade, they're the one that I usually go through when I'm doing my own trading with my portfolio. (I have more that is professionally managed and this is a learning/play exercise, or started out that way.)
But, to the point, assuming one is patient and actually wants to be a shareholder, an investor in a company, then owning shares is a pretty good thing. I've had a great deal of luck, detailed in other novella-esque posts, and it has been rather lucrative. It doesn't appear to take a whole lot of effort, in the manner that I'm using it, and it doesn't even need a lot of attention. I don't day-trade. I don't play with penny stocks. I don't do HFTs, and I never take the tax penalty for removing my money from the market within a year - all investments are long-term investments. Just don't be greedy, invest in things that look trendy, and bail when you've reached a certain value - don't stay in, don't be greedy.
E*Trade, mashing up word clouds, scraping a few sites, reading comments, setting a few Google alerts, and just being wise enough to shut up and listen - all seem to help. I like E*Trade as a lot can be automated and I don't want to pay a lot of attention. I tried paying attention for the first year and a half. I lost money. I lost a bunch of money. I'd trade on the slightest sign of trouble or boom. I'd buy and sell like the experts suggested. Nope... I lost a ton (probably a couple of year's wages for a few people here) and then I just gave it some thought and paid attention to the math involved.
I made it this far down the thread and, it appears to me, many people are using their own definition of "free market."
I suspect that, in the past, we had a certain areas where there were true, pure form, free markets. I suspect that those were in areas where there were little demands for markets anyhow and probably few items to actually market. I know that China was one of the first groups of people to do some of the standardized things (like weights and measures) according to What the Ancients Knew. But, I'm sure, somewhere back there was a completely free coconut market which may well have been rife with abuse or may have worked as well as some people envisage.
I don't know what country you live in but in my country (the US) the only area where you must maintain a minimal speed is on closed access highways which are cleared for a minimum 60' and fenced. Even on those highways, the minimum speed is removed during poor weather or poor visibility situations.
Also, no, you should *not* be driving at the threshold. You should be on the safe side of that threshold and not exceeding your skill level or the vehicles ability.
I live in moose and deer territory and have driven many, many miles - all over the world even. I've never hit a mammal and I don't drive all that slowly - in more than 40 years of driving. In fact, I regularly exceed the speed limit. I do hit frogs because, for some reason, frogs seem to like going out on the road in the rain and they are unavoidable unless you want to come to a complete stop and move the frogs out of the road. (I'm not kidding, I retired to Maine and had no idea that frogs did that.)
At any rate, no - you shouldn't be using racing skills and driving at the threshold. You should be going *slower* then that. If you can not bring your vehicle to a complete and safe stop without hitting an obstacle then you (or someone else) is driving too fast for the conditions. The conditions may be in place because of poor road design, maintenance, weather, skills, vehicle characteristics, or many other things. If, on the contrive highway, there's a bush that's so close to the road, with a guardrail, and an oncoming vehicle - slow down and be prepared to stop or take evasive action.
In my country, at one point in time, it was taboo and resulted in the things you mentioned if someone spoke out on behalf of equal rights for black people. They didn't even have to do it in a disruptive manner for it to be considered disruptive and socially harmful.
Maybe there's room for a market swing there?;-) (I should have said, "in the US.")
350/g? That's crazy talk. Then again, your continent is kind of isolated but I'd expect that there's areas where you could grow the plant. You might have to do it up on that island above Darwin or one of those islands (my geography skills aren't the greatest - but I can point 'em out on a map.) You guys need a third world country on your border.
That said, coke is like the one drug I don't seem to get addicted to. I often have some left, weeks later, and may end up just giving away the remaining amount. I like it well enough and it's great for when you've gotta get stuff done (or want to have a chat with someone) but I just don't like the feeling after about 48 hours. I mostly just want to sleep at that point and, well, I can't. I'm not overly fond of smoking it. That's a very anti-social thing which kind of conflicts with the social nature.
I've searched and then followed the ads at the top of Google when I was looking for a product. I'm not actually sure but I've probably bought something from there.
Heh, no - I'm not against Facebook on the grounds of privacy. I choose to not share there because they will work really hard to monitor my use and market specifically to me. They also tie into a bunch of other sites so could then track my usage even more. I'm not opposed to Facebook, per se. I'm opposed to Facebook for me - personally. You can, if you want, make use of their services.
*sighs* Unfortunately, there is faux wood paneling in this house. I've never bothered to redecorate it - I bought it with everything in it and have added/changed very little. In fact, it gets worse. It has fake Western ranch style decorations.
Other than that, I seldom drink any more. (Note: I did not say I was sober, just that I seldom drink.) But, I was always partial to rum or beer. Though I did spend a lot of time with peppermint schnapps. And I'd suspect my buying habits mimic your anticipations. Nice, not the best, and probably more expensive than I could have found.
The ashtray is not quite correct. I'm a bit anal about not having more than one or two stubs in it. I wash 'em out in the sink and grab a new one and replace them often. But I have been known to get distracted and end up with more stubs than there should be so I guess that's fairly accurate. Err... There's fake paneling in the house in Henderson, now that I think about it. The upstairs is covered with it. It looks like a redecorating job done by someone on a combination of OCD medications and LSD - all with 1970s styles in mind and 1990s appliances. I should do something about that.
But, there's no paneling when I'm home. Well, no fake wood grain paneling. There's gypsum board and exposed beams because I am that tacky. But no wood paneling. So, there's that.
As mentioned elsewhere - I'm not really against Facebook but I do have a problem with their attempts to track me - as a non-user. I see their scripts and cookies everywhere. I block it. If I a privacy zealot then I'd not have shared things like my full name, my address, what I'm doing, and things of that nature. I do all of that right here on Slashdot.
Hell, I have regular off-site conversations via email and chat, I've sent hardware to other Slashdotters, I've met them in real life, and I've even sent money to a Slashdotter at one point. (It wasn't a loan, they were just having some financial issues and needed a break.) So, no... I'd not say that it was privacy on-site that bothers me but their attempt to track me off-site is bothersome.
Actually, I've made the argument that Slashdot is every bit a social media site - complete with user generated content, a friends list, tracked conversations, ability to collaborate, and more. No, I'm against Facebook for me. You're free to use it. Have fun with that. I do dislike being tagged in photographs which is privacy related. I don't like that they probably have a fake profile of me but that's not me so I don't really care that much. It's not like I'm anonymous. There are a few people who use my moniker and one person who has pretended to be me (that I know of).
So no, there are some privacy concerns but there's general behaviors that I dislike that are not limited to just Facebook. I'm pretty much content with just blocking their cookies and scripts. I don't join because there's no value added by doing so. I already have enough friends, I meet them in real life. I already have a social life and I don't need new editions. I already can schedule, contact, share, create, and opine on a variety of subjects - and I can do so with some value of anonymity. I'm not so much anti-Facebook but more anti-Facebook for me.
I dare say that I've never indicated anything more than that. A careful reading of my posts should indicate the same sentiment. What you elect to do and how you elect to do it, so long as it's not causing demonstrable harm, is pretty much good by me - not that you need my blessing. Perhaps you have me confused or perhaps I have worded something that might not be articulated well enough.
You're going down the road, you'll hit the guardrail at an angle and be just fine. Also, you should have noticed the kid climbing up and getting on the guardrail. If you can't see that, you're driving too fast for the conditions.
You might not be familiar with my comments but I've been rather staunch, to the point of offering bets, that claim AV is not going to get here for a very long time - if at all. (Partially autonomous is already here, fully autonomous isn't going to be here on the road, in any great numbers, for a very long time.)
But, to go back... Almost every accident is caused by someone driving too fast for the conditions. (Read that carefully if you're confused.) The situation you mention should not happen with a human or computer driver. You've got time to see the kid climbing up onto the guardrail. You've got time to see them approach. You had ample time to slow down and be able to make a panic stop. A computerized vehicle is going to go slow when there are dangers around. It will, ideally, notice something on the side of the road, long before it reaches the road, and adapt to that situation.
A human should have done the same thing. If you add, "well we're going around a blind corner" then you don't negate my point - you prove my point. Accidents aren't accidents in almost every single case. The result may not be the intended result but it sure as hell wasn't an accident. The operator drove too fast for the conditions. If you have a child appear in the road and are unable to stop then you damned well are at least partially culpable (in my opinion - we're talking morals and not laws) because even if you were going less than the speed limit, you were still driving too fast for the conditions.
If you can't stop your vehicle in time then you need to have already slowed down before you reached that point. A good example is your contrived highway. With modern car illumination, ABS, and average human response times - you're already nearing the point were you're driving too fast to stop, completely, should an obstruction appear even at the limit of your lighted vision. (I believe modern cars, with ABS, average about 60 MPH before this threshold is reached.)
If you're driving too fast for the conditions then it's not "the other guy" who is putting you at risk and taking the lives of your children into their hands - in the vast majority of cases, there are some (a tiny percent) which actually qualify as accidents but, more often than not, those are also easily attributed to people not doing things like maintaining their vehicle properly.
Here's one more indication for you. I repeat, you're driving too fast for the conditions. If you're going 5 MPH and slide off the road because of snow and ice, you're driving too fast for the conditions. If you are driving so fast that you're unable to come to a safe and complete stop for anything that might enter your travel lane then you're driving too fast for the conditions.
An AV will not do that. The software will be written by people smarter than that. However, you still mash the hell out of the guardrail to avoid the children because the fault is pretty much entirely yours for failing to maintain control of your vehicle. No matter how fast you go, if you have an accident then you were driving too fast for the conditions. I don't care if you're drunk and going 1 MPH and bump into another car as you attempt to park. You were driving too fast for the conditions. And yes, sometimes the appropriate speed is a grand total of zero miles per hour.
And you think those numbers are accurate? You're gonna trust stats rather than someone who's able to give what should have been the highest (out of stater) prices in a variety of areas? Don't be silly. I'll post this as an AC as I can guess you'll just accept anything from some 'havoscope' site as opposed to someone who's actually familiar with the subject and does things like travels around and gets to see the various markets involved.
Of course, if you want to pay those prices then I'm sure someone will be more than happy to sell you that at those prices. Hell, let me amuse myself and open your link...
Yeah, you should read your link... They say $300 to $8. Yup. $8 for a gram of coke. They claim those are the UN's numbers. They then have a $30 value as a user-submitted value.
Like I said, the numbers given are bullshit. You probably believe the prices given by the cops when they confiscate marijuana. I've given you an education and you have opted to remain ignorant. That is something you might want to work on - or stay away from drugs, I'm not sure that they will be good for you.
I'd expect there's some way of tracking that, to some extent, still. Being able to exchange cash for something illicit is a good thing, no? It's fairly common knowledge that I may, on occasion, partake in illicit substances and I don't really hide that. However, it might be traceable if there's a log on someone's phone. While I'm willing to admit certain behaviors, I'm not liking the idea of giving them additional information with which they can use for the purposes of prosecution.
In other words, I'm not so paranoid that I'll lie and say that I don't do such things. At the same time, I'd still rather not give them anything that can be used as a specific instance which might be capable of being submitted to a court of law. Generic statements do not provide probable cause about specific incidents and thus will be unlikely to subject me to a warrant. Generic statements and a specific provable interaction in which cash was exchanged and no legal product received may well be enough for a "reasonable person" to convict.
That's one such instance. Another would be that I sometimes find stuff like cool automobiles for sale. I've not bought any on this trip, well not for me, but there's something nice about bargaining and being able to go to our car, open the trunk, and pull out a stack of bills with which to entice the seller. I sometimes tip people who don't normally get tips. I sometimes give money to panhandlers and to buskers. I sometimes give some extra money, beyond the on-record tip, to waitresses and I know they're not paying taxes on it but I'm okay with that.
I don't normally do any of these things but if I wanted to hire a hooker or go to a strip show then I might not be happy with that being tracked and then getting the resultant spam that indicates that's a usual purchase habit - even though I may have been doing so to enable a friend to enjoy such services.
So, I guess there's some bit in there that's wanting to be hidden (thanks for making me think about it more clearly and force me into making a less generic statement) but other stuff I just don't want tracked. I've been mugged before and pulled the cash out of my wallet and handed it to the mugger. They told me to give them my wallet and I told them that I could not do that. If I'm going to have something stolen then I'd like to minimize it and not have to give up a phone, wallet full of cards, etc...
Mostly, however, I just want to be able to remain pseudo-anonymous if I want to. There are a small number of people who know who I am, in the real world, and will have certain expectations if they know this. I've accumulated a few bucks and may wish to keep that hidden and not have my name associated with transactions because people may feel inclined to try to make me pay more than others. It's not a huge concern but it's one of a number of reasons that I can think of to prefer some relative anonymity.
Will something like Bitcoin mitigate all of those issues? Maybe. You tell me? Will it have the same value in an emergency when the infrastructure is unavailable? Not long ago, I had someone here tell me that the Internet and Cellular is ubiquitous. Yet, when I go home, I can drive for about thirty minutes and then have neither of those two things for a good two more hours worth of driving. There are a whole lot of variables that need to be considered and I don't know if we've got the resources (currently) to even get started on this sort of thing.
I dunno? I really don't but I prefer how it is and I see no compelling reasons to alter the situation. The majority of what I see (some of which is security related) are negatives. I see very little positive in this and that makes me less inclined to want something like this. The pros and cons list seems to be heavily on the favor of "cons" instead of "pros" so I really can't think of a reason to switch and I sure as hell don't like the idea of BTC-esque systems which are not actually anonymous - in fact, it's their lack of anonymity that makes them function (as I understa
That sounds about right. As I recall, the shoulder was worth something like 15% which is how I ended up at 65% which was (as you suggest) rounded up to 70% which sounds about right. The funny thing is, I didn't have to ask for it and, in fact, I understand they were *obligated by law* to inform me. I guess I'd actually have to actively apply for it should I want to accept it.
It probably sounds strange to some people. I understand. But, really, I don't need it. I got lucky in life. There is absolutely nothing that I would do with that money and, frankly, I'd rather it remain as a benefit for other vets who have not been as lucky as I have. I've thought about collecting it and donating it to the DAV, Operating Homefront, or Toys For Tots but I already donate a goodly sum to all three. Leaving it in the system seems to be the best choice. And I accept that it seems strange to some people but they probably don't actually understand the word "brother" beyond a familial relationship and don't understand.
I've had people question this before. "Why would you give up free money?" Because I don't need it. "You're just letting the government keep what they owe you." They already give me more than I feel I am owed and I'm able to get along just fine without it. "You're just leaving it in the system." Yes, I'm leaving it in the system that I opt to support.
Speaking of which, we've got an annual "machine gun shoot" for vets and disabled vets specifically (the money goes to a variety of causes but both of those groups get in free) and I have two (properly classed, taxed, and filed) firearms that qualify. I bring those up and usually bring 10k rounds up along with each. Both would be from about your era. If you're ever in Maine and want to hit up the shoot, you're more than welcome. It has been quasi-private a few times. You'll get an invite if wanted.
As for the firearms, the first is an M-14 and the latter you might really recognize. It is an M-22 which you're probably familiar with. (The Chinese AK-47.) The history, pre-import in 1974, is not known but the research indicates it was built in '68. I understand that they provided a whole metric ton of them without any markings, serial numbers, or indicators that they were built in China. Having one that's kind of, sort of, traceable is a bit special (to me).
I didn't enter service until after the war was over. I wasn't born until 57, after all. I grew up on base until "the incident" which sent me off to school. My father and older brother served in country but my dad's rank meant he wasn't going to actually see much/any combat and my brother escaped without injury. I did lose an uncle way back in 1964 (I'm pretty sure) but I don't recall ever meeting him. He was on my mother's side and she was pretend white (the Prescott family but they had some Amerindian involved on that end) and my dad is part black and the rest if Micmac so, yeah... We were never very close. (The dates of my birth should be a good indicator of how well society appreciated such mixed marriages.)
Ah well... I figured I'd share some info and let you know that we've got a machine gun shoot if you want to partake. There's a lot of drinking (afterwards) and swapping lies. It's good to see some of the kids coming in and meeting some of the ones who've been dealing with it from years. I must say, the government has done a much better job with these kids and letting them acclimate to the real world after they've seen combat. People still complain but, well, I suspect that it's impossible to explain it to them.
I think there are seriously convinced that there are businesses that do, and others that are obligated to, sell their products at no additional fees other then the absolute minimum - with zero profit. Sometimes, some of the posts indicate that they expect businesses to sell at a loss. It's not too expensive because they can't afford it, no matter what they think. They're not entitled to consume everything. A business is created, typically, to make money.
I really don't understand Tape... I've thought about this in the past and found your comment funny. Sadly, you had to explain it to them. Yes, businesses pass on expenses, any and all of them. It's like a conversation I had about six months ago - on this site.
Them: "We should raise the taxes on businesses to 90%." I: "They'll just raise the prices." Them: "Then we'll stop buying their goods." I: "They'll just go out of business and stop paying taxes and they might just move and stop doing business here which puts us at a disadvantage." Them: "Good, they don't deserve to make money."
Now, if I had felt it would have been productive, I'd have followed that up with, "Why not just enforce the current regulations and make them pay the taxes they owe at a reasonable rate and closing some of the loopholes?" I did not bother. I'd had a prior conversation with that same poster where they indicated that they fully understood the reasons capital gains are taxed at the rates they are taxed at and then proceeded to tell me that even short-term investments are taxed at something like 5%, or less, if they're under a million dollars. I'm not exactly sure why I bothered with that conversation as I'd already given them the salient links in an earlier conversation. Once in a while, I still see them posting similar things when the subject pops up. I really don't understand.
I dunno... I suspect these people have always been here on the planet but now they have a voice that is more broadly heard. (The missus is watching football, I am bored.) So, I guess they're not new. Years ago, I had an argument where the person insisted that the Electoral College did not exist and that individual presidential votes counted. I had neither an encyclopedia nor an internet to show them that they were incorrect. However, I'm guessing that some folks will continue to believe what they want, even after they've been shown conflicting information.
In conclusion, smart people aren't the ones who know everything. Smart people are the ones who know enough to be willing to learn new things, change their opinions, and act differently. Politicians who do this are called wishy-washy and it's seen as a bad thing. Sometimes, I wonder how our species has made it as far as it has. I kind of wish I knew where they were getting this information, why they felt it was trustworthy information, and then find a way to present those same people with factual information. It's like someone is feeding them a kernel of truth and then exaggerating some falsehoods to go with it - and people are accepting this at face value.
I dunno but I was bored so I figured I'd pick on you as you might have an answer, a solution, or just want to swear at 'em too.
I'm in the US and I've had my own credit union or bank account (sometimes multiples), in my name and my name only, for as long as I can remember. My parents felt it important that I learn the benefits from saving money and so I've had a bank account since somewhere around the day I was born. It used to be a paper book and then it was still a paper book but they put it into a machine that printed the transactions on it and things have progressed since there. It used to be written in blue or black pen and I had to manually fill out a deposit or withdrawal slip.
I'm not entirely positive but I got a checking account sometime before I was sent off to school - I lived on campus because I'd engaged in some inappropriate behavior involving a friend, some matches, a T-Bird, and a garage. So, off to school I went... (It worked out better than I'd expected.) But, sometime around that point was when I got a checking account. I didn't even have a photo ID or anything but the local store, near the school, let me bring in my bank book and show them that and I was then able to write checks at that store.
I should mention that, counting the school, the total population number for the town was probably under 1000 people. At any rate, not long after, I had a bank account in that State at a local bank and that had checks as well. I don't recall getting starter checks with that account and the nice lady behind the counter suggested that I get my check numbers started at a higher number than 1 so that the stores would be more likely to accept them. I think she suggested 250 but that was a lot of years ago.
This was, of course, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It's kind of strange to stop and think about the things that have changed. Ah well... I guess the point is that kids can have their own bank accounts. My kids had their own accounts and had their own debit cards. When I sent 'em off to college they had their own credit cards because they'd shown they could manage money wisely. Hell, they're pretty good at it today.
My daughter's very good. She gives me a look, knows just the right words to say, and I pay for it.:/ I don't know what she does with her money but she tells me that she's saving it just like I taught her. Telling her that she's supposed to save it so that she can spend it doesn't do me any good. Damned kid's clever like that. I assume it's witchcraft.
People bitch about the VA but I am pretty happy. I was in infantry and then a guard. I took a break and reenlisted and was a driver and then a transportation officer (escort/chaser). I have a screwed knee and back. Without asking they said that it is military related and I think the rating was 65% (I'm not positive) and that counts a shoulder injury that's probably not actually service related but they erred on the side of caution. So, my medical is covered even though I can easily pay for it.
I'm told that I'm eligible to receive a check for something like a grand and a half a month - that is *not* subjected to my other income (capital gains and existing assets) but I've not looked into it. I consider the medical to be a fine benefit for my service and, from what I can tell, they've never charged me for anything. The thing is, I've got a few dollars yet I've never had a co-pay, I've never gotten a bill, I don't even know what stuff would cost there.
I do go to get private care for some things. When I'm home, I like to go see a head-shrinker to make sure that I'm still sane (they assure me that I am but I appreciate someone who is able to be objective) and I pay for my own substance abuse medication and care. It's just Suboxone and a non-treatment level of Seroquel (spelling?) which I don't take 'cause it makes me feel hungover in the morning.
The odd thing is, I don't mind sharing some information about me. I just don't want it to be mandatory. Hell, I've met people from this site out in the real world. I've sent 'em hardware and actually sent one some money at one point but it was not a loan or anything. When it is no longer my choice is when I am bothered.
I'm not really sure how to describe it, I've had other interactions where I felt my privacy was violated. Or at least my pseudo-anonymity was violated... I'm not sure if I can articulate it properly but I'll try.
I got doxxed back after I'd sold my business. I'd made the mistake of saying some specific numbers and the parent company name. I found it easier to just accept it, it was really invasive feeling, than it was to try to fight it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, well... At least then it wasn't the government that did it, at least not directly. Someone didn't believe that I'd made some donations and managed to find out enough information to get my tax returns. It turns out that I had made those donations and their way of apologizing they published my tax filings and were at least kind enough to redact my SSN. (I don't think it helped much.)
At any rate, that wasn't the government doing it. That wasn't the government insisting on it. There's a difference between "that guy is an asshole" and "my government is full of assholes." (The latter may be true.) Yes, tax information is public information but having that tied to an online identity is unfortunate. I've since come to accept it.
As an aside, from being doxxed, I learned a few things. The most concerning thing was the hate mail that I got for not donating to a few charities. I had no idea that sort of thing would happen. I don't blame those organization but they have some zany followers. It's temping to name and shame but I'll avoid it. I'd go into more details about them but this is already long enough, I've shared parts of it before. I'm still kind of pissed.
Fortunately, I was moving shortly but I had to go down to the post office to pick up boxes of mail for a while. I got everything from homosexual publications to religious material to pizza. Meh, I paid for the pizza a few times - it was timed well and they'd picked good pizza. I learned to like something called "Hawaiian Pizza." 'Snot bad, I'd never tried it before. Pineapple on a pizza, whodathunkit?
I guess, the big issue is choice and persons vs. the government. I'm not sure how to say it better than that.
Nobody is paying that much for a gram of coke. Fairly unstomped powder in FL is 80/g but less if you buy a ball. You *might* pay that in NYC but only if you're afraid of black people. Standard price in Buffalo was 100/g & 300/ball about a month ago. Even in Maine, you're paying 300/ball. Less if you're buying bulk.
Those numbers are full of shit. Oh, a ball is an 8-ball. It is 3.5 grams. You can probably get rock down here in FL for 60/g and I'm up in the panhandle.
Err... Umm... Yeah, I got that information for a friend.
Call me paranoid if you want but I can easily pay for anything I want with plastic. Yet, almost invariably, I pay with cash. I don't even have anything to hide, really. I just don't think it is anyone's business but my own what I spend my money on - after taxes. Anything I move into a draft/share account is already taxed so there's no reason for 'em to tax it again. I fill out the little piece of paper at my credit union (I tend to take out lump sums) with something close to the truth. "I want to get really drunk" has actually been a line filled in at the "Purpose" section - and nary a problem.
Err... I haven't really drank much in a while so I've not used that one for a while. The last one was one word, "Wanderlust." I'd rather not disclose how much I took out for my wanderlust but, suffice to say, the credit union gave me a small briefcase which I'll return when I arrive back home. No, it doesn't have a cuff attached to it. If someone's gonna steal my money then I'd prefer they just take it and not need to remove my hand in order to do so.
If we go completely cashless in my country then, well, I've the capacity to move but I'd try to rally the people to attempt to stop the idea before it happened. Failing that, I'd accept that I'm outnumbered (tyranny of the masses) and simply move. It would be a shame, however. It is a step too far. That's one liberty too many and along the lines of a mass disarmament of society. There are only so many liberties to give up before the negatives outweigh the benefits and it becomes time to move. My apologies for those who are unable to follow in my shoes.
Keep up the good fight and I'll send you a few bucks to help. I'll take a few people with me, if they want to go, and call it good. There's almost certainly a country that would be happy to have me and I doubt it will take me long to remove the remainder of my asset and liquidate the rest. I already keep some stored in other banks and this is eventuality is, partially, prepared for. I'm assuming that I'll have ample warning to finalize those preparations.
You overestimate the intelligence of the homo sapien. Keep in mind that every single person that you have ever met, that is still alive, can probably find some way to access the internet - maybe while wearing a bib and a helmet. I find it easier to picture them wearing both, and a diaper.
Before I knew it she was walking next to me singing...
(I like you guys almost as much as I like apps guy and slightly less than I like cow guy.) Meh, I'll post this signed in. This karma's made for walking...
Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to happen in real life - except on the internet. Very seldom do the courts need to evict someone, town-halls have to evict someone, etc...
I'm not sure where I'm going with it but I figured I'd add this (and the above) as food for thought. I have no idea where the solution lies but I loathe the idea of restricting speech because it is, in fact, a very slippery slope - see the repressive regimes across the world and the history of others. We don't have to listen, usually, but stopping them is a tricky business. Buggered if I know what the solution is.
I must have conflated (I'm not double checking, I'm lazy so I'll take your word) and read that there were no guardrails. So, then, guard rails don't actually stop a vehicle which means we'll just accelerate and hit the guardrail which will certainly give the kid room (they're in the road, after all) so we don't hit him. Wait, they're on that side? Flash your lights and split the lane with the on-coming semi which will leave room 'cause the kid's now on the edge of the road. In that latter case, slow down as much as you can in a controlled fashion. (How'd the kid run into the road, through a guardrail, and not be seen anyhow?) Don't rub the guardrails, drive right into 'em as hard as you can. They move, they're designed to. They're not meant to stay static but to give and allow you to hit them with force, if need be.
Ah, but what about those concrete barriers? Well now, you angle it just right and go up on two wheels and drive down the road like a fucking champ! *nods*
Or, alternatively, you drive slow enough for the conditions and you notice the kid on the side of the road and take precautions to make them aware of your presence while also ensuring that you're able to bring the vehicle to a quick and safe stop. Which is also what I would expect an autonomous vehicle to do - but we're a long ways before we've completely autonomous vehicles being even a majority of private passenger vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anything in that post that I'd debate as being logically unsound or philosophically inconsistent. You might want to look at "Socialist Libertarian" when you get a minute, if you've not already done so. I liken them (and myself) to people who've reached similar conclusions based on logic and reason as opposed to emotion and the desire to control a population. There are, of course, zealots on all sides of the spectrum, I'd like to think I'm fairly moderate.
The subject of a standing military is debatable on a few different levels. War, today, is a complex affair should it take off on the scales seen in the past - even in the past 100 years. I could be reasoned into certain benefits being given to those who voluntarily subject themselves to a period of service - not necessarily in the military, with scaled benefits for each.
An example might be those who serve for a two year period are able to get access to health care, those that serve for four get school, those that serve for eight get a pension, etc... I'm not inclined to separate them all into rational values - that's just an example of how it might look. I'm sure we could have a fine debate on where those points should be. There would be obvious exceptions, those who are unable to serve would get the benefits regardless. Religious/conscious exemption would be covered by their not needing to serve in a combat role.
I've mulled that idea over and over for the past 25 years or so.
It does, indeed, sound a lot like I'm a socialist but, really, I just want your kids to be productive because that enables my kids to be more upwardly mobile. It's a win-win and I'm not altruistic. I do have strong leanings towards maximum liberties and the method to take advantage of those liberties is to have both free time, a safety net, and a moderate income. I can, now, enjoy my freedom more than I've ever been able to do so in the past. The reason for this is that I've now accumulated enough wealth to where I do not need to work, I do not need to curb my speech, I do not need to worry about reputation, and I don't need to worry about an income. There's some altruism in saying that I'd like more people to be in that position, ideally everyone - but that's not going to happen, but there's also the reality that it serves me better to have people in that position.
I hope that I expressed that well enough to be understood. Unfortunately, some deeper concepts don't fit well in 140 characters or on a bumper sticker. I am verbose, not articulate.
Hah! I bought something like that to look inside engines. It was a bit more pricey at the time but it was a trivial expense. I was actually kind of shocked at how cheap it was.
I don't know as that was a targeted ad - I was looking at tools and "customers who bought ____ also bought _____" made me click something, I clicked a few more things, and then eventually I found that and bought it. I got one with a light, it works better than I'd expected it to.
I am pretty sure those impeding laws only mean that you have to pull to the side of the road and allow traffic to pass at the nearest safe place - not that they failed to maintain a speed but they failed to allow people to pass. Additionally, you might recall that I said "almost all" (or similar verbiage). There are exceptions but they are few and exceedingly rare. The vast majority of collisions are caused by someone going too fast for the conditions. Yes, a mysterious magicked bunny might appear and put 100 nuns in your path and there will be no actions a human or a computer can take to avoid them. In that case, the fault lies with the bunny. Pretty much every other time, it's the fault of the person who was driving too quickly for the conditions.
I don't think I've disclosed this publicly but I'm a bit partial to E*Trade, they're the one that I usually go through when I'm doing my own trading with my portfolio. (I have more that is professionally managed and this is a learning/play exercise, or started out that way.)
But, to the point, assuming one is patient and actually wants to be a shareholder, an investor in a company, then owning shares is a pretty good thing. I've had a great deal of luck, detailed in other novella-esque posts, and it has been rather lucrative. It doesn't appear to take a whole lot of effort, in the manner that I'm using it, and it doesn't even need a lot of attention. I don't day-trade. I don't play with penny stocks. I don't do HFTs, and I never take the tax penalty for removing my money from the market within a year - all investments are long-term investments. Just don't be greedy, invest in things that look trendy, and bail when you've reached a certain value - don't stay in, don't be greedy.
E*Trade, mashing up word clouds, scraping a few sites, reading comments, setting a few Google alerts, and just being wise enough to shut up and listen - all seem to help. I like E*Trade as a lot can be automated and I don't want to pay a lot of attention. I tried paying attention for the first year and a half. I lost money. I lost a bunch of money. I'd trade on the slightest sign of trouble or boom. I'd buy and sell like the experts suggested. Nope... I lost a ton (probably a couple of year's wages for a few people here) and then I just gave it some thought and paid attention to the math involved.
I made it this far down the thread and, it appears to me, many people are using their own definition of "free market."
I suspect that, in the past, we had a certain areas where there were true, pure form, free markets. I suspect that those were in areas where there were little demands for markets anyhow and probably few items to actually market. I know that China was one of the first groups of people to do some of the standardized things (like weights and measures) according to What the Ancients Knew. But, I'm sure, somewhere back there was a completely free coconut market which may well have been rife with abuse or may have worked as well as some people envisage.
I don't know what country you live in but in my country (the US) the only area where you must maintain a minimal speed is on closed access highways which are cleared for a minimum 60' and fenced. Even on those highways, the minimum speed is removed during poor weather or poor visibility situations.
Also, no, you should *not* be driving at the threshold. You should be on the safe side of that threshold and not exceeding your skill level or the vehicles ability.
I live in moose and deer territory and have driven many, many miles - all over the world even. I've never hit a mammal and I don't drive all that slowly - in more than 40 years of driving. In fact, I regularly exceed the speed limit. I do hit frogs because, for some reason, frogs seem to like going out on the road in the rain and they are unavoidable unless you want to come to a complete stop and move the frogs out of the road. (I'm not kidding, I retired to Maine and had no idea that frogs did that.)
At any rate, no - you shouldn't be using racing skills and driving at the threshold. You should be going *slower* then that. If you can not bring your vehicle to a complete and safe stop without hitting an obstacle then you (or someone else) is driving too fast for the conditions. The conditions may be in place because of poor road design, maintenance, weather, skills, vehicle characteristics, or many other things. If, on the contrive highway, there's a bush that's so close to the road, with a guardrail, and an oncoming vehicle - slow down and be prepared to stop or take evasive action.
In my country, at one point in time, it was taboo and resulted in the things you mentioned if someone spoke out on behalf of equal rights for black people. They didn't even have to do it in a disruptive manner for it to be considered disruptive and socially harmful.
I dunno...
Maybe there's room for a market swing there? ;-) (I should have said, "in the US.")
350/g? That's crazy talk. Then again, your continent is kind of isolated but I'd expect that there's areas where you could grow the plant. You might have to do it up on that island above Darwin or one of those islands (my geography skills aren't the greatest - but I can point 'em out on a map.) You guys need a third world country on your border.
That said, coke is like the one drug I don't seem to get addicted to. I often have some left, weeks later, and may end up just giving away the remaining amount. I like it well enough and it's great for when you've gotta get stuff done (or want to have a chat with someone) but I just don't like the feeling after about 48 hours. I mostly just want to sleep at that point and, well, I can't. I'm not overly fond of smoking it. That's a very anti-social thing which kind of conflicts with the social nature.
Thanks. I'll have to try that when I get home.
I've searched and then followed the ads at the top of Google when I was looking for a product. I'm not actually sure but I've probably bought something from there.
20 years ago, I'd have called you an idiot. Dunno what to make of that but, alas, that's how it was - at least on the surface.
Heh, no - I'm not against Facebook on the grounds of privacy. I choose to not share there because they will work really hard to monitor my use and market specifically to me. They also tie into a bunch of other sites so could then track my usage even more. I'm not opposed to Facebook, per se. I'm opposed to Facebook for me - personally. You can, if you want, make use of their services.
*sighs* Unfortunately, there is faux wood paneling in this house. I've never bothered to redecorate it - I bought it with everything in it and have added/changed very little. In fact, it gets worse. It has fake Western ranch style decorations.
Other than that, I seldom drink any more. (Note: I did not say I was sober, just that I seldom drink.) But, I was always partial to rum or beer. Though I did spend a lot of time with peppermint schnapps. And I'd suspect my buying habits mimic your anticipations. Nice, not the best, and probably more expensive than I could have found.
The ashtray is not quite correct. I'm a bit anal about not having more than one or two stubs in it. I wash 'em out in the sink and grab a new one and replace them often. But I have been known to get distracted and end up with more stubs than there should be so I guess that's fairly accurate. Err... There's fake paneling in the house in Henderson, now that I think about it. The upstairs is covered with it. It looks like a redecorating job done by someone on a combination of OCD medications and LSD - all with 1970s styles in mind and 1990s appliances. I should do something about that.
But, there's no paneling when I'm home. Well, no fake wood grain paneling. There's gypsum board and exposed beams because I am that tacky. But no wood paneling. So, there's that.
As mentioned elsewhere - I'm not really against Facebook but I do have a problem with their attempts to track me - as a non-user. I see their scripts and cookies everywhere. I block it. If I a privacy zealot then I'd not have shared things like my full name, my address, what I'm doing, and things of that nature. I do all of that right here on Slashdot.
Hell, I have regular off-site conversations via email and chat, I've sent hardware to other Slashdotters, I've met them in real life, and I've even sent money to a Slashdotter at one point. (It wasn't a loan, they were just having some financial issues and needed a break.) So, no... I'd not say that it was privacy on-site that bothers me but their attempt to track me off-site is bothersome.
Actually, I've made the argument that Slashdot is every bit a social media site - complete with user generated content, a friends list, tracked conversations, ability to collaborate, and more. No, I'm against Facebook for me. You're free to use it. Have fun with that. I do dislike being tagged in photographs which is privacy related. I don't like that they probably have a fake profile of me but that's not me so I don't really care that much. It's not like I'm anonymous. There are a few people who use my moniker and one person who has pretended to be me (that I know of).
So no, there are some privacy concerns but there's general behaviors that I dislike that are not limited to just Facebook. I'm pretty much content with just blocking their cookies and scripts. I don't join because there's no value added by doing so. I already have enough friends, I meet them in real life. I already have a social life and I don't need new editions. I already can schedule, contact, share, create, and opine on a variety of subjects - and I can do so with some value of anonymity. I'm not so much anti-Facebook but more anti-Facebook for me.
I dare say that I've never indicated anything more than that. A careful reading of my posts should indicate the same sentiment. What you elect to do and how you elect to do it, so long as it's not causing demonstrable harm, is pretty much good by me - not that you need my blessing. Perhaps you have me confused or perhaps I have worded something that might not be articulated well enough.
I'm not the guy who's
You're going down the road, you'll hit the guardrail at an angle and be just fine. Also, you should have noticed the kid climbing up and getting on the guardrail. If you can't see that, you're driving too fast for the conditions.
You might not be familiar with my comments but I've been rather staunch, to the point of offering bets, that claim AV is not going to get here for a very long time - if at all. (Partially autonomous is already here, fully autonomous isn't going to be here on the road, in any great numbers, for a very long time.)
But, to go back... Almost every accident is caused by someone driving too fast for the conditions. (Read that carefully if you're confused.) The situation you mention should not happen with a human or computer driver. You've got time to see the kid climbing up onto the guardrail. You've got time to see them approach. You had ample time to slow down and be able to make a panic stop. A computerized vehicle is going to go slow when there are dangers around. It will, ideally, notice something on the side of the road, long before it reaches the road, and adapt to that situation.
A human should have done the same thing. If you add, "well we're going around a blind corner" then you don't negate my point - you prove my point. Accidents aren't accidents in almost every single case. The result may not be the intended result but it sure as hell wasn't an accident. The operator drove too fast for the conditions. If you have a child appear in the road and are unable to stop then you damned well are at least partially culpable (in my opinion - we're talking morals and not laws) because even if you were going less than the speed limit, you were still driving too fast for the conditions.
If you can't stop your vehicle in time then you need to have already slowed down before you reached that point. A good example is your contrived highway. With modern car illumination, ABS, and average human response times - you're already nearing the point were you're driving too fast to stop, completely, should an obstruction appear even at the limit of your lighted vision. (I believe modern cars, with ABS, average about 60 MPH before this threshold is reached.)
If you're driving too fast for the conditions then it's not "the other guy" who is putting you at risk and taking the lives of your children into their hands - in the vast majority of cases, there are some (a tiny percent) which actually qualify as accidents but, more often than not, those are also easily attributed to people not doing things like maintaining their vehicle properly.
Here's one more indication for you. I repeat, you're driving too fast for the conditions. If you're going 5 MPH and slide off the road because of snow and ice, you're driving too fast for the conditions. If you are driving so fast that you're unable to come to a safe and complete stop for anything that might enter your travel lane then you're driving too fast for the conditions.
An AV will not do that. The software will be written by people smarter than that. However, you still mash the hell out of the guardrail to avoid the children because the fault is pretty much entirely yours for failing to maintain control of your vehicle. No matter how fast you go, if you have an accident then you were driving too fast for the conditions. I don't care if you're drunk and going 1 MPH and bump into another car as you attempt to park. You were driving too fast for the conditions. And yes, sometimes the appropriate speed is a grand total of zero miles per hour.
And you think those numbers are accurate? You're gonna trust stats rather than someone who's able to give what should have been the highest (out of stater) prices in a variety of areas? Don't be silly. I'll post this as an AC as I can guess you'll just accept anything from some 'havoscope' site as opposed to someone who's actually familiar with the subject and does things like travels around and gets to see the various markets involved.
Of course, if you want to pay those prices then I'm sure someone will be more than happy to sell you that at those prices. Hell, let me amuse myself and open your link...
Yeah, you should read your link... They say $300 to $8. Yup. $8 for a gram of coke. They claim those are the UN's numbers. They then have a $30 value as a user-submitted value.
Like I said, the numbers given are bullshit. You probably believe the prices given by the cops when they confiscate marijuana. I've given you an education and you have opted to remain ignorant. That is something you might want to work on - or stay away from drugs, I'm not sure that they will be good for you.
I'd expect there's some way of tracking that, to some extent, still. Being able to exchange cash for something illicit is a good thing, no? It's fairly common knowledge that I may, on occasion, partake in illicit substances and I don't really hide that. However, it might be traceable if there's a log on someone's phone. While I'm willing to admit certain behaviors, I'm not liking the idea of giving them additional information with which they can use for the purposes of prosecution.
In other words, I'm not so paranoid that I'll lie and say that I don't do such things. At the same time, I'd still rather not give them anything that can be used as a specific instance which might be capable of being submitted to a court of law. Generic statements do not provide probable cause about specific incidents and thus will be unlikely to subject me to a warrant. Generic statements and a specific provable interaction in which cash was exchanged and no legal product received may well be enough for a "reasonable person" to convict.
That's one such instance. Another would be that I sometimes find stuff like cool automobiles for sale. I've not bought any on this trip, well not for me, but there's something nice about bargaining and being able to go to our car, open the trunk, and pull out a stack of bills with which to entice the seller. I sometimes tip people who don't normally get tips. I sometimes give money to panhandlers and to buskers. I sometimes give some extra money, beyond the on-record tip, to waitresses and I know they're not paying taxes on it but I'm okay with that.
I don't normally do any of these things but if I wanted to hire a hooker or go to a strip show then I might not be happy with that being tracked and then getting the resultant spam that indicates that's a usual purchase habit - even though I may have been doing so to enable a friend to enjoy such services.
So, I guess there's some bit in there that's wanting to be hidden (thanks for making me think about it more clearly and force me into making a less generic statement) but other stuff I just don't want tracked. I've been mugged before and pulled the cash out of my wallet and handed it to the mugger. They told me to give them my wallet and I told them that I could not do that. If I'm going to have something stolen then I'd like to minimize it and not have to give up a phone, wallet full of cards, etc...
Mostly, however, I just want to be able to remain pseudo-anonymous if I want to. There are a small number of people who know who I am, in the real world, and will have certain expectations if they know this. I've accumulated a few bucks and may wish to keep that hidden and not have my name associated with transactions because people may feel inclined to try to make me pay more than others. It's not a huge concern but it's one of a number of reasons that I can think of to prefer some relative anonymity.
Will something like Bitcoin mitigate all of those issues? Maybe. You tell me? Will it have the same value in an emergency when the infrastructure is unavailable? Not long ago, I had someone here tell me that the Internet and Cellular is ubiquitous. Yet, when I go home, I can drive for about thirty minutes and then have neither of those two things for a good two more hours worth of driving. There are a whole lot of variables that need to be considered and I don't know if we've got the resources (currently) to even get started on this sort of thing.
I dunno? I really don't but I prefer how it is and I see no compelling reasons to alter the situation. The majority of what I see (some of which is security related) are negatives. I see very little positive in this and that makes me less inclined to want something like this. The pros and cons list seems to be heavily on the favor of "cons" instead of "pros" so I really can't think of a reason to switch and I sure as hell don't like the idea of BTC-esque systems which are not actually anonymous - in fact, it's their lack of anonymity that makes them function (as I understa
That sounds about right. As I recall, the shoulder was worth something like 15% which is how I ended up at 65% which was (as you suggest) rounded up to 70% which sounds about right. The funny thing is, I didn't have to ask for it and, in fact, I understand they were *obligated by law* to inform me. I guess I'd actually have to actively apply for it should I want to accept it.
It probably sounds strange to some people. I understand. But, really, I don't need it. I got lucky in life. There is absolutely nothing that I would do with that money and, frankly, I'd rather it remain as a benefit for other vets who have not been as lucky as I have. I've thought about collecting it and donating it to the DAV, Operating Homefront, or Toys For Tots but I already donate a goodly sum to all three. Leaving it in the system seems to be the best choice. And I accept that it seems strange to some people but they probably don't actually understand the word "brother" beyond a familial relationship and don't understand.
I've had people question this before. "Why would you give up free money?" Because I don't need it. "You're just letting the government keep what they owe you." They already give me more than I feel I am owed and I'm able to get along just fine without it. "You're just leaving it in the system." Yes, I'm leaving it in the system that I opt to support.
Speaking of which, we've got an annual "machine gun shoot" for vets and disabled vets specifically (the money goes to a variety of causes but both of those groups get in free) and I have two (properly classed, taxed, and filed) firearms that qualify. I bring those up and usually bring 10k rounds up along with each. Both would be from about your era. If you're ever in Maine and want to hit up the shoot, you're more than welcome. It has been quasi-private a few times. You'll get an invite if wanted.
As for the firearms, the first is an M-14 and the latter you might really recognize. It is an M-22 which you're probably familiar with. (The Chinese AK-47.) The history, pre-import in 1974, is not known but the research indicates it was built in '68. I understand that they provided a whole metric ton of them without any markings, serial numbers, or indicators that they were built in China. Having one that's kind of, sort of, traceable is a bit special (to me).
I didn't enter service until after the war was over. I wasn't born until 57, after all. I grew up on base until "the incident" which sent me off to school. My father and older brother served in country but my dad's rank meant he wasn't going to actually see much/any combat and my brother escaped without injury. I did lose an uncle way back in 1964 (I'm pretty sure) but I don't recall ever meeting him. He was on my mother's side and she was pretend white (the Prescott family but they had some Amerindian involved on that end) and my dad is part black and the rest if Micmac so, yeah... We were never very close. (The dates of my birth should be a good indicator of how well society appreciated such mixed marriages.)
Ah well... I figured I'd share some info and let you know that we've got a machine gun shoot if you want to partake. There's a lot of drinking (afterwards) and swapping lies. It's good to see some of the kids coming in and meeting some of the ones who've been dealing with it from years. I must say, the government has done a much better job with these kids and letting them acclimate to the real world after they've seen combat. People still complain but, well, I suspect that it's impossible to explain it to them.
I think there are seriously convinced that there are businesses that do, and others that are obligated to, sell their products at no additional fees other then the absolute minimum - with zero profit. Sometimes, some of the posts indicate that they expect businesses to sell at a loss. It's not too expensive because they can't afford it, no matter what they think. They're not entitled to consume everything. A business is created, typically, to make money.
I really don't understand Tape... I've thought about this in the past and found your comment funny. Sadly, you had to explain it to them. Yes, businesses pass on expenses, any and all of them. It's like a conversation I had about six months ago - on this site.
Them: "We should raise the taxes on businesses to 90%."
I: "They'll just raise the prices."
Them: "Then we'll stop buying their goods."
I: "They'll just go out of business and stop paying taxes and they might just move and stop doing business here which puts us at a disadvantage."
Them: "Good, they don't deserve to make money."
Now, if I had felt it would have been productive, I'd have followed that up with, "Why not just enforce the current regulations and make them pay the taxes they owe at a reasonable rate and closing some of the loopholes?" I did not bother. I'd had a prior conversation with that same poster where they indicated that they fully understood the reasons capital gains are taxed at the rates they are taxed at and then proceeded to tell me that even short-term investments are taxed at something like 5%, or less, if they're under a million dollars. I'm not exactly sure why I bothered with that conversation as I'd already given them the salient links in an earlier conversation. Once in a while, I still see them posting similar things when the subject pops up. I really don't understand.
I dunno... I suspect these people have always been here on the planet but now they have a voice that is more broadly heard. (The missus is watching football, I am bored.) So, I guess they're not new. Years ago, I had an argument where the person insisted that the Electoral College did not exist and that individual presidential votes counted. I had neither an encyclopedia nor an internet to show them that they were incorrect. However, I'm guessing that some folks will continue to believe what they want, even after they've been shown conflicting information.
In conclusion, smart people aren't the ones who know everything. Smart people are the ones who know enough to be willing to learn new things, change their opinions, and act differently. Politicians who do this are called wishy-washy and it's seen as a bad thing. Sometimes, I wonder how our species has made it as far as it has. I kind of wish I knew where they were getting this information, why they felt it was trustworthy information, and then find a way to present those same people with factual information. It's like someone is feeding them a kernel of truth and then exaggerating some falsehoods to go with it - and people are accepting this at face value.
I dunno but I was bored so I figured I'd pick on you as you might have an answer, a solution, or just want to swear at 'em too.
I'm in the US and I've had my own credit union or bank account (sometimes multiples), in my name and my name only, for as long as I can remember. My parents felt it important that I learn the benefits from saving money and so I've had a bank account since somewhere around the day I was born. It used to be a paper book and then it was still a paper book but they put it into a machine that printed the transactions on it and things have progressed since there. It used to be written in blue or black pen and I had to manually fill out a deposit or withdrawal slip.
I'm not entirely positive but I got a checking account sometime before I was sent off to school - I lived on campus because I'd engaged in some inappropriate behavior involving a friend, some matches, a T-Bird, and a garage. So, off to school I went... (It worked out better than I'd expected.) But, sometime around that point was when I got a checking account. I didn't even have a photo ID or anything but the local store, near the school, let me bring in my bank book and show them that and I was then able to write checks at that store.
I should mention that, counting the school, the total population number for the town was probably under 1000 people. At any rate, not long after, I had a bank account in that State at a local bank and that had checks as well. I don't recall getting starter checks with that account and the nice lady behind the counter suggested that I get my check numbers started at a higher number than 1 so that the stores would be more likely to accept them. I think she suggested 250 but that was a lot of years ago.
This was, of course, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It's kind of strange to stop and think about the things that have changed. Ah well... I guess the point is that kids can have their own bank accounts. My kids had their own accounts and had their own debit cards. When I sent 'em off to college they had their own credit cards because they'd shown they could manage money wisely. Hell, they're pretty good at it today.
My daughter's very good. She gives me a look, knows just the right words to say, and I pay for it. :/ I don't know what she does with her money but she tells me that she's saving it just like I taught her. Telling her that she's supposed to save it so that she can spend it doesn't do me any good. Damned kid's clever like that. I assume it's witchcraft.
People bitch about the VA but I am pretty happy. I was in infantry and then a guard. I took a break and reenlisted and was a driver and then a transportation officer (escort/chaser). I have a screwed knee and back. Without asking they said that it is military related and I think the rating was 65% (I'm not positive) and that counts a shoulder injury that's probably not actually service related but they erred on the side of caution. So, my medical is covered even though I can easily pay for it.
I'm told that I'm eligible to receive a check for something like a grand and a half a month - that is *not* subjected to my other income (capital gains and existing assets) but I've not looked into it. I consider the medical to be a fine benefit for my service and, from what I can tell, they've never charged me for anything. The thing is, I've got a few dollars yet I've never had a co-pay, I've never gotten a bill, I don't even know what stuff would cost there.
I do go to get private care for some things. When I'm home, I like to go see a head-shrinker to make sure that I'm still sane (they assure me that I am but I appreciate someone who is able to be objective) and I pay for my own substance abuse medication and care. It's just Suboxone and a non-treatment level of Seroquel (spelling?) which I don't take 'cause it makes me feel hungover in the morning.
The odd thing is, I don't mind sharing some information about me. I just don't want it to be mandatory. Hell, I've met people from this site out in the real world. I've sent 'em hardware and actually sent one some money at one point but it was not a loan or anything. When it is no longer my choice is when I am bothered.
I'm not really sure how to describe it, I've had other interactions where I felt my privacy was violated. Or at least my pseudo-anonymity was violated... I'm not sure if I can articulate it properly but I'll try.
I got doxxed back after I'd sold my business. I'd made the mistake of saying some specific numbers and the parent company name. I found it easier to just accept it, it was really invasive feeling, than it was to try to fight it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, well... At least then it wasn't the government that did it, at least not directly. Someone didn't believe that I'd made some donations and managed to find out enough information to get my tax returns. It turns out that I had made those donations and their way of apologizing they published my tax filings and were at least kind enough to redact my SSN. (I don't think it helped much.)
At any rate, that wasn't the government doing it. That wasn't the government insisting on it. There's a difference between "that guy is an asshole" and "my government is full of assholes." (The latter may be true.) Yes, tax information is public information but having that tied to an online identity is unfortunate. I've since come to accept it.
As an aside, from being doxxed, I learned a few things. The most concerning thing was the hate mail that I got for not donating to a few charities. I had no idea that sort of thing would happen. I don't blame those organization but they have some zany followers. It's temping to name and shame but I'll avoid it. I'd go into more details about them but this is already long enough, I've shared parts of it before. I'm still kind of pissed.
Fortunately, I was moving shortly but I had to go down to the post office to pick up boxes of mail for a while. I got everything from homosexual publications to religious material to pizza. Meh, I paid for the pizza a few times - it was timed well and they'd picked good pizza. I learned to like something called "Hawaiian Pizza." 'Snot bad, I'd never tried it before. Pineapple on a pizza, whodathunkit?
I guess, the big issue is choice and persons vs. the government. I'm not sure how to say it better than that.
Nobody is paying that much for a gram of coke. Fairly unstomped powder in FL is 80/g but less if you buy a ball. You *might* pay that in NYC but only if you're afraid of black people. Standard price in Buffalo was 100/g & 300/ball about a month ago. Even in Maine, you're paying 300/ball. Less if you're buying bulk.
Those numbers are full of shit. Oh, a ball is an 8-ball. It is 3.5 grams. You can probably get rock down here in FL for 60/g and I'm up in the panhandle.
Err... Umm... Yeah, I got that information for a friend.
Other than that, carry on.
Call me paranoid if you want but I can easily pay for anything I want with plastic. Yet, almost invariably, I pay with cash. I don't even have anything to hide, really. I just don't think it is anyone's business but my own what I spend my money on - after taxes. Anything I move into a draft/share account is already taxed so there's no reason for 'em to tax it again. I fill out the little piece of paper at my credit union (I tend to take out lump sums) with something close to the truth. "I want to get really drunk" has actually been a line filled in at the "Purpose" section - and nary a problem.
Err... I haven't really drank much in a while so I've not used that one for a while. The last one was one word, "Wanderlust." I'd rather not disclose how much I took out for my wanderlust but, suffice to say, the credit union gave me a small briefcase which I'll return when I arrive back home. No, it doesn't have a cuff attached to it. If someone's gonna steal my money then I'd prefer they just take it and not need to remove my hand in order to do so.
If we go completely cashless in my country then, well, I've the capacity to move but I'd try to rally the people to attempt to stop the idea before it happened. Failing that, I'd accept that I'm outnumbered (tyranny of the masses) and simply move. It would be a shame, however. It is a step too far. That's one liberty too many and along the lines of a mass disarmament of society. There are only so many liberties to give up before the negatives outweigh the benefits and it becomes time to move. My apologies for those who are unable to follow in my shoes.
Keep up the good fight and I'll send you a few bucks to help. I'll take a few people with me, if they want to go, and call it good. There's almost certainly a country that would be happy to have me and I doubt it will take me long to remove the remainder of my asset and liquidate the rest. I already keep some stored in other banks and this is eventuality is, partially, prepared for. I'm assuming that I'll have ample warning to finalize those preparations.
You overestimate the intelligence of the homo sapien. Keep in mind that every single person that you have ever met, that is still alive, can probably find some way to access the internet - maybe while wearing a bib and a helmet. I find it easier to picture them wearing both, and a diaper.
... diddy dum diddy doo!
Before I knew it she was walking next to me singing ...
(I like you guys almost as much as I like apps guy and slightly less than I like cow guy.) Meh, I'll post this signed in. This karma's made for walking...
Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to happen in real life - except on the internet. Very seldom do the courts need to evict someone, town-halls have to evict someone, etc...
I'm not sure where I'm going with it but I figured I'd add this (and the above) as food for thought. I have no idea where the solution lies but I loathe the idea of restricting speech because it is, in fact, a very slippery slope - see the repressive regimes across the world and the history of others. We don't have to listen, usually, but stopping them is a tricky business. Buggered if I know what the solution is.
I must have conflated (I'm not double checking, I'm lazy so I'll take your word) and read that there were no guardrails. So, then, guard rails don't actually stop a vehicle which means we'll just accelerate and hit the guardrail which will certainly give the kid room (they're in the road, after all) so we don't hit him. Wait, they're on that side? Flash your lights and split the lane with the on-coming semi which will leave room 'cause the kid's now on the edge of the road. In that latter case, slow down as much as you can in a controlled fashion. (How'd the kid run into the road, through a guardrail, and not be seen anyhow?) Don't rub the guardrails, drive right into 'em as hard as you can. They move, they're designed to. They're not meant to stay static but to give and allow you to hit them with force, if need be.
Ah, but what about those concrete barriers? Well now, you angle it just right and go up on two wheels and drive down the road like a fucking champ! *nods*
Or, alternatively, you drive slow enough for the conditions and you notice the kid on the side of the road and take precautions to make them aware of your presence while also ensuring that you're able to bring the vehicle to a quick and safe stop. Which is also what I would expect an autonomous vehicle to do - but we're a long ways before we've completely autonomous vehicles being even a majority of private passenger vehicles.