I also happen to believe from personal experience that you have to suffer in order to change. Anything someone does to relieve your suffering is committing a grave injustice.
Take a drug abuser for example. If they are happy living that way fine. If they are unhappy because they can't keep a job and are broke and homeless it is an injustice to just give them money or a place to live. They need to suffer in order to get to the point where they are serious about stopping and then they can stop on their own.
Well there are organic tobacco products on the market but they don't have a big share of the market. Why? Because people like the taste of the stuff they add. They also add stuff to keep it burning. I don't smoke so I have no idea why. All I know is people like it. I dont mind the government doing studies and warning people but if people know the facts and choose to take the risk I say let them.
Not at all. I have realized a long time ago that everyone is an expert on one thing. What makes them happy. The problem comes in when what makes one person happy is not what another person thinks should make them happy and they are prepared to use force to make them conform. The truth is some people are happier:
Being addicted to drugs rather than living sober Living in poverty where they have no responsibilities Hooking up with anything that moves disease be damned Working a minimum wage job with little responsibilities Eating like a glutton rather than staying health Spending like there is no tomorrow rather than saving
There are many people that are happy living lives you find revolting. The truth is it is their life and if they are not harming anyone else they should be free to live that way. You can preach or volunteer you time and money to try to convince them otherwise. But you will not succeed.
The problem is when those that like to control others steal other people's money to try to change people to fit what they think will make them happy. That is the real evil not the person that lives a life you don't like.
Right, because companies invented smoking tobacco. People love smoking for whatever reason and companies exist to serve them. Or we can ban it like other drugs like weed and heroine. That way nobody can use it and life will be all better. Oh wait that isn't working out either.
Where do you think the word dollar comes from? It originated as the name of a one ounce silver coin. So yes I would like the government to peg the dollar to a certain amount of silver that is redeemable on demand. Kind of like we had 40 years ago.
If you really think that the only reason companies don't intentionally kill people is because of laws you are beyond hope. You drinking water is only clean enough to pass regulations. But many people aren't satisfied by this hence the market for water filters. So it's pretty obvious there are companies out there trying to provide products that people want because the regulations aren't doing it,
Lead was used in paint for a very long time. Only when it was shown to cause problems did people want it out of their paint. Sure a regulation was assed but the market wasn't there for it anymore anyway.
Do you really think parents were mean and cruel 100 years ago when they had their kids work in factories? Before the industrial revolution kids worked in the field just to feed the family and many died at early ages as a result. Factories even dangerous ones were a step up. Only when productivity rose to the point where most people could just survive on the parents income did it even enter people's mind that kids shouldn't work. The regulations just followed that natural progression.
So let me get this straight. Most people are too dumb to make import decisions about things. But somehow they are smart enough to vote for people that are smart enough to be able to make rules that force them not to do things they would otherwise do? That doesn't make sense. If they are too dumb to make important decisions what particular magic happens in the voting booth that makes them able to figure out who to vote for?
You aren't supposed to invest in currency. If you have a hard money that doesn't inflate over time you don't even have to invest. You can just save and won't lose your purchasing power. This is the big danger with having a fiat currency. People are put on a treadmill where their wealth is constantly being stolen through inflation to pay for things the politicians don't have the guts to pay for with taxes.
When I said drives out I mean out of circulation and into savings. In this definition protected good money would not drive bad money into savings. The bad money would simply not be used for anything. So people want to keep money that holds it value and spend money they expect to lose value.
Like you said in a free market that doesn't work because people won't accept the bad money. But if there are laws forcing you to take the bad money people will spend the bad money and hoard the good money. For example you only see modern coinage with little precious metals in circulation because all of the good versions with precious metals are held on to and if they are exchanged it is for the precious metal content and not the legal face value.
Even without patents a small inventor can only work with companies that sign a NDA. These are private contracts and you could sue for breech of contract if the company stole the idea.
You are making the assumption that technology and cheap foreign labor only benefits those that are doing the coping. I am a mechanical engineer and I use technology like 3D CAD, FEA, Rapid Prototyping, and CNC Machines that DRASTICALLY reduce the time and labor for the initial invention. Plus if you come up with something really innovative it will be difficult to copy anyway.
You have a natural limited monopoly on all new ideas. The more innovative the longer it will take to reverse engineer and ramp up production. There is no need for a legal monopoly. If you bring a super cool product to market you have a limited time in which you can sell at a premium before your competition can take those ideas and build it cheaper. Take the fashion industry. You can't patent fashion and they are constantly innovating. Some people gladly pay more for a certain brand even if a cheaper knockoff exists. This is how all innovation should be.
The problem is they are two different groups. It isn't I ignore the benefits it is that the benefits are given to the undeserving. I am currently watching as my parents and inlaws savings are being demolished. Everything they need to buy is going up. The only thing that got cheaper was housing but they both own their houses outright. They were both savers and lived frugally to have a comfortable retirement. But their wealth is being stolen to bail out banks and people who got houses with no money down and interest only loans.
You are right. The mistake I made in my explanation is that bad money drives out good only where there are legal tender laws that force you to accept the bad money for payments of debt. Good catch.
I should have been more clear. You are right you can write a contract like that. But if it's broken and you go to court and you have a ruling against you It becomes a debt that you can fulfill by payment with dollars.
I like how you write devalue the currency like it's nothing. You do understand that by devaluing the currency you destroy the life savings of the elderly and people on fixed income. You basically rob all of the people that lived within their means and saved their whole life to bail out those that borrowed to the hilt and lived like there is no tomorrow.
And we never recovered from the great depression until after WWII and we cut government spending WAY down and fired millions of soldiers. WWII only got us out of the depression if you think the way to get rid of unemployment is to ship millions of unemployed people overseas. Look how people actually lived during WWII. It was terrible with rationing and cost controls on all sorts of products.
There is a theory I agree with and that is bad money drives out good money. This means if you have two types of money one that holds purchasing power relatively well like gold, silver, or even Swiss Francs and fit currency that is undergoing continous inflation like the dollar people will naturally save the good money and spend the one that will be worth less tomorrow. Makes sense doesn't it?
This doesn't even matter because In the US only federal reserve notes are legal tender. So you can't write contracts in other things and have it held up in court. You can always be forced to accept payment in FRN.
To prove your point where did the uranium come from in the first place? It came from whatever past supernovas made up the dust and gas that made up our solar system. So it has at least been around at least 5 billion years maybe more. Like you said it is the radiation that is the problem and having such a long half life is good. I means every once in a while it decays and the radiation is very little compared with background radiation. The short half life stuff on the order of days and weeks isn't that bad either because it can easily be contained during the time it takes to decay enough to become safe. The problem is the stuff you mentioned like Cs-137 that have fairly long half lives of 30 years. Also it has a beta and gamma decay until it's stable so the radiation isn't blocked by your skin. So this means it puts out a good bit of radiation for about as long as a human life which is why it's so bad.
You could use regenerative braking for you scheme. The train at rest sits in the station and as the next train starts to brake and dumps the power on the rails the train t rest uses it to start accelerating. That way no flywheel needed.
I hardly use my cell phone. Tmobile has the best plan I could find. $100 prepaid for 1000 minutes that are good for 1 year. And if you don't use up those minutes in a year they roll to the next year if you buy another $100.
That is what I did. I got a BS in ME and then after I got a job I enrolled in an online Software Engineering program at FSU. I took it easy only taking 2 classes a semester since I was working full time. It took 3 years to get enough credits to graduate with the degree. I'm thinking about doing it again in EE if I can find an all online school. It was actually fun since I would watch lecture and do the homework instead of zoning out in front of the TV. Also at that pace you won't burn yourself out.
Slashdot Mirror
I also happen to believe from personal experience that you have to suffer in order to change. Anything someone does to relieve your suffering is committing a grave injustice.
Take a drug abuser for example. If they are happy living that way fine. If they are unhappy because they can't keep a job and are broke and homeless it is an injustice to just give them money or a place to live. They need to suffer in order to get to the point where they are serious about stopping and then they can stop on their own.
Well there are organic tobacco products on the market but they don't have a big share of the market. Why? Because people like the taste of the stuff they add. They also add stuff to keep it burning. I don't smoke so I have no idea why. All I know is people like it. I dont mind the government doing studies and warning people but if people know the facts and choose to take the risk I say let them.
Not at all. I have realized a long time ago that everyone is an expert on one thing. What makes them happy. The problem comes in when what makes one person happy is not what another person thinks should make them happy and they are prepared to use force to make them conform. The truth is some people are happier:
Being addicted to drugs rather than living sober
Living in poverty where they have no responsibilities
Hooking up with anything that moves disease be damned
Working a minimum wage job with little responsibilities
Eating like a glutton rather than staying health
Spending like there is no tomorrow rather than saving
There are many people that are happy living lives you find revolting. The truth is it is their life and if they are not harming anyone else they should be free to live that way. You can preach or volunteer you time and money to try to convince them otherwise. But you will not succeed.
The problem is when those that like to control others steal other people's money to try to change people to fit what they think will make them happy. That is the real evil not the person that lives a life you don't like.
Right, because companies invented smoking tobacco. People love smoking for whatever reason and companies exist to serve them. Or we can ban it like other drugs like weed and heroine. That way nobody can use it and life will be all better. Oh wait that isn't working out either.
Where do you think the word dollar comes from? It originated as the name of a one ounce silver coin. So yes I would like the government to peg the dollar to a certain amount of silver that is redeemable on demand. Kind of like we had 40 years ago.
If you really think that the only reason companies don't intentionally kill people is because of laws you are beyond hope. You drinking water is only clean enough to pass regulations. But many people aren't satisfied by this hence the market for water filters. So it's pretty obvious there are companies out there trying to provide products that people want because the regulations aren't doing it,
Lead was used in paint for a very long time. Only when it was shown to cause problems did people want it out of their paint. Sure a regulation was assed but the market wasn't there for it anymore anyway.
Do you really think parents were mean and cruel 100 years ago when they had their kids work in factories? Before the industrial revolution kids worked in the field just to feed the family and many died at early ages as a result. Factories even dangerous ones were a step up. Only when productivity rose to the point where most people could just survive on the parents income did it even enter people's mind that kids shouldn't work. The regulations just followed that natural progression.
So let me get this straight. Most people are too dumb to make import decisions about things. But somehow they are smart enough to vote for people that are smart enough to be able to make rules that force them not to do things they would otherwise do? That doesn't make sense. If they are too dumb to make important decisions what particular magic happens in the voting booth that makes them able to figure out who to vote for?
You aren't supposed to invest in currency. If you have a hard money that doesn't inflate over time you don't even have to invest. You can just save and won't lose your purchasing power. This is the big danger with having a fiat currency. People are put on a treadmill where their wealth is constantly being stolen through inflation to pay for things the politicians don't have the guts to pay for with taxes.
When I said drives out I mean out of circulation and into savings. In this definition protected good money would not drive bad money into savings. The bad money would simply not be used for anything.
So people want to keep money that holds it value and spend money they expect to lose value.
Like you said in a free market that doesn't work because people won't accept the bad money. But if there are laws forcing you to take the bad money people will spend the bad money and hoard the good money. For example you only see modern coinage with little precious metals in circulation because all of the good versions with precious metals are held on to and if they are exchanged it is for the precious metal content and not the legal face value.
Even without patents a small inventor can only work with companies that sign a NDA. These are private contracts and you could sue for breech of contract if the company stole the idea.
You are making the assumption that technology and cheap foreign labor only benefits those that are doing the coping. I am a mechanical engineer and I use technology like 3D CAD, FEA, Rapid Prototyping, and CNC Machines that DRASTICALLY reduce the time and labor for the initial invention. Plus if you come up with something really innovative it will be difficult to copy anyway.
You have a natural limited monopoly on all new ideas. The more innovative the longer it will take to reverse engineer and ramp up production. There is no need for a legal monopoly. If you bring a super cool product to market you have a limited time in which you can sell at a premium before your competition can take those ideas and build it cheaper. Take the fashion industry. You can't patent fashion and they are constantly innovating. Some people gladly pay more for a certain brand even if a cheaper knockoff exists. This is how all innovation should be.
The problem is they are two different groups. It isn't I ignore the benefits it is that the benefits are given to the undeserving. I am currently watching as my parents and inlaws savings are being demolished. Everything they need to buy is going up. The only thing that got cheaper was housing but they both own their houses outright. They were both savers and lived frugally to have a comfortable retirement. But their wealth is being stolen to bail out banks and people who got houses with no money down and interest only loans.
You are right. The mistake I made in my explanation is that bad money drives out good only where there are legal tender laws that force you to accept the bad money for payments of debt. Good catch.
I should have been more clear. You are right you can write a contract like that. But if it's broken and you go to court and you have a ruling against you It becomes a debt that you can fulfill by payment with dollars.
I like how you write devalue the currency like it's nothing. You do understand that by devaluing the currency you destroy the life savings of the elderly and people on fixed income. You basically rob all of the people that lived within their means and saved their whole life to bail out those that borrowed to the hilt and lived like there is no tomorrow.
And we never recovered from the great depression until after WWII and we cut government spending WAY down and fired millions of soldiers. WWII only got us out of the depression if you think the way to get rid of unemployment is to ship millions of unemployed people overseas. Look how people actually lived during WWII. It was terrible with rationing and cost controls on all sorts of products.
There is a theory I agree with and that is bad money drives out good money. This means if you have two types of money one that holds purchasing power relatively well like gold, silver, or even Swiss Francs and fit currency that is undergoing continous inflation like the dollar people will naturally save the good money and spend the one that will be worth less tomorrow. Makes sense doesn't it?
This doesn't even matter because In the US only federal reserve notes are legal tender. So you can't write contracts in other things and have it held up in court. You can always be forced to accept payment in FRN.
I own a few pounds of silver. Anytime you want to trade it for a few pounds of your gold let me know.
Seriously value is purely subjective. In the earth there is about 30 times more silver than gold. That is one of the reasons for the cost difference.
To prove your point where did the uranium come from in the first place? It came from whatever past supernovas made up the dust and gas that made up our solar system. So it has at least been around at least 5 billion years maybe more. Like you said it is the radiation that is the problem and having such a long half life is good. I means every once in a while it decays and the radiation is very little compared with background radiation. The short half life stuff on the order of days and weeks isn't that bad either because it can easily be contained during the time it takes to decay enough to become safe. The problem is the stuff you mentioned like Cs-137 that have fairly long half lives of 30 years. Also it has a beta and gamma decay until it's stable so the radiation isn't blocked by your skin. So this means it puts out a good bit of radiation for about as long as a human life which is why it's so bad.
You could use regenerative braking for you scheme. The train at rest sits in the station and as the next train starts to brake and dumps the power on the rails the train t rest uses it to start accelerating. That way no flywheel needed.
Or what if Apple bought them and made it the only network for iPhones and iPads?
I hardly use my cell phone. Tmobile has the best plan I could find. $100 prepaid for 1000 minutes that are good for 1 year. And if you don't use up those minutes in a year they roll to the next year if you buy another $100.
That is what I did. I got a BS in ME and then after I got a job I enrolled in an online Software Engineering program at FSU. I took it easy only taking 2 classes a semester since I was working full time. It took 3 years to get enough credits to graduate with the degree. I'm thinking about doing it again in EE if I can find an all online school. It was actually fun since I would watch lecture and do the homework instead of zoning out in front of the TV. Also at that pace you won't burn yourself out.
Wow what state do you live in?
As for liability see this http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/21/nuclear-risk-insurance/
at stealing taxpayers money to line the pockets of politically connected crooks.