|
I agree completely. Obama got elected on a platform of "hope" and "change," and his administration has shown that it's hopeless, the only change you'll get is for the worse.
|
|
|
|
That is CLEARLY just a not-so-cleverly disguised front muzzle part of a blunderbuss. Stop spreading 3D printable gun components!
Another handy dandy 3d printable item. In the script, these were shipped to millions. Think of the cost savings if everyone just printed them in their garage! All the extra beer money! http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:23457Actually, I think that would have cut into people's beer money. I somehow doubt V sent them all COD.  Still, very cool. |
|
|
|
So what do you guys think? I don't think he's crazy. Either way, post what you think those 2 functions are and later I'll reveal the answer (again, according to him).
- Preserve the anthem.
- Preserve the flag.
Ideally in a museum funded by donations. +1 |
|
|
|
I'm not so sure about the military. Community Militias can form sufficient means for defense. Wealth People and companies could pay for the equipment while every citizens agrees to defend the county if attacked. Indeed. In fact, there's solid evidence that military force is not a natural monopoly. Even in cases where a professional military is desired, bureaucratic concerns limit it's "optimal" size below that of a national force, even below that of some smaller markets. I would say the second is diplomacy. As long as there are other Governments. The free nation would need to be represented towards them through a single entity. This is a good point, but what purpose would a diplomat serve? I mean, foreign policy could be summed up in a press release: "We'll trade with anyone who comes in peace, and woe betide any who come in war." |
|
|
|
myrkul is right.
Just wanna enjoy this for a moment....  You say it so rarely.  |
|
|
|
As for the 2 roles of government, one is the security of the land from outside forces, the other is the enforcer of law inside the country.
Pretty sure that's indeed the correct answer: (1) national defense and (2) rule of law. Yeah, that's my vote too. Essentially: 1. Police/military (they're pretty much the same thing, especially if the military is used only defensively) 2. Courts The thing is, monopoly power distorts even these two essential functions. In brief, when the government is the law, they are above the law. Market forces can take care of everything, and there is no need for a monopoly on those services. |
|
|
|
unlike bitcoin gold has an intrinsic value because it is used in several industries and this use and consumption of the raw metal give it that intrinsic value. bitcoin, on the other hand is only worth the paper it's printed upon.
Gold's intrinsic value is a very tiny fraction of it's market price. It's actual use in industry is very limited and if you go by that it is tens of thousands of times over valued. It also takes very little gold to plate a wire or a pane of glass which is one of it's main uses. The intrinsic value argument doesn't fly with gold. Gold's value is purely subjective. As I said before, there is no such thing as "intrinsic" value. Even gold's demand for industrial processes is driven by the subjective desires of the users of those industrial processes. Gold does have several intrinsic properties which make it desirable, but value is not an intrinsic property. It is assigned solely externally and subjectively. |
|
|
|
Speculators who are in it soley to make themselves more USD are pumping capital into btc infrastructure. They'll realize their error.
You assume that it is an error. I do. If they aren't putting those extra dollars back into getting bitcoins, I imagine that they must eventually change their minds or keep using fiat until they come around. Im assuming that the dollar is dying, of course. Its only an error if they sell out of btc. It's only an error if they fail to make a profit. Speculators, believe it or not, add stability to the price, by turning volatility into profit. |
|
|
|
So if this is being dumb with money, then your judgement is obfuscated by your personal preference. For me this works just fine, and I am quietly minding my own business and instruct you to do likewise.
Remind me what you did with an unsecured laptop, and how much in bitcoins was on it? And how you "proved" you had a huge bankroll? Is it just digital money that you're a complete fool with, or are your past successes mostly attributable to luck and connections? |
|
|
|
If an opponent killed in the last round (unless they killed a killer)
Can you clarify this? By "killer", do you mean one who killed in the previous round, or one who has ever killed? That is, would you kill a Grudger (one who always kills against an opponent who has previously killed, even after the opponent stops killing)? Hmm. The behavior that would model is punishing someone who attempts to extract excessive (in my opinion) retribution in return for a previous crime. Now, the Tit for Tat strategy models, roughly, the NAP. The NAP, itself, is silent on retribution. However, it is my personal interpretation that retribution is not particularly just, nor is it necessary. Therefore, I would kill a grudger if put up against one. Again, I might sometimes forgive, especially if asked. A clarification: communication between players is allowed. Deals never to kill each other model contracts, promising not to kill a player in the next turn and then doing so models fraud, and so on. Just as in the real world, public contracts are more enforceable than secret ones, so keep that in mind if someone PMs you offering to make a secret alliance. Yeah, also, I'm gonna play. Excellent. In accordance with the rules, I will step out until another player comes in, making it odd again. The updated Round 2 roster: Ekaros <--> Rassah Cameltoemcgee <--> FenixRD FCTaiChi <--> Elwar Foxpup <-->wdmw We're just waiting on you and Cameltoemcgee. |
|
|
|
Oh he earned it... by running a business. What did you do today?
... And I borrowed a few thousand from Cypress... Not paying them back... They are a foreign bank... They can give me a bad grade on my credit report... What are they going to do, raise the value of the dollar menu again, to get my money? Oh, so you're a thief and a parasite. That explains a lot. I hope you don't have kids. It'd suck to have to makeup some bullshit lie to write on your tombstone just so they don't have to admit their douchebag father wasn't worth remembering. "He came, he whined, he stole, he ate Mcdonald's, he died. He produced nothing of value and the world would have been better off without him." Nice waste of life dipshit. The only thing you have working for you is that you're not the minority. Well, that sums it up well. |
|
|
|
|
Neat!
My showerhead works fine, though.
|
|
|
|
Oh he earned it... by running a business. What did you do today?
I worked for a business... Funny thing is... I am retired. So, which is it? retired, or minimum wage worker? |
|
|
|
Did the programs know of the outcomes of other games in iterated prisoners dilemma? Is that different here? If so are you playing tit for tat socially or individually?
I don't know if the programs knew the outcomes or not (they were paired off for entire games, instead of switching around like we are). But of course we all know the outcomes of these games, so there's no point in pretending we don't. If an opponent killed in the last round (unless they killed a killer), or killed me last time we were paired, I will kill. A slightly better strategy is "Tit for Tat with forgiveness," so I might occasionally forgive, or trade with a killer, anyway. This allows a killer to occasionally benefit from immediately rehabilitating. |
|
|
|
I am still pissed that McDonalds raised the price of the $1.00 small fries, up to $1.27... Totally defeated the whole purpose of raising minimum-wage! Ever think those two facts might be linked somehow? (Hint: almost all of McDonald's employees get minimum wage) Oh, you lost a large portion of money you probably didn't actually earn... so sad... too bad... cry me a river...
Oh he earned it... by running a business. What did you do today? |
|
|
|
Intrinsic value is nonexistent. All value is subjective.
Would you be open-minded enough to hear an opposing viewpoint? 4 Arguments for intrinsic value (I don't even buy all 4, just ideas): I pride myself on my openmindedness and ability to judge opposing viewpoints on their merits instead of discarding them out of hand. If we had perfect morality, information and ability inside of a normalized market system (the hypothesis goes) we would be able to attain the ideal intrinsic value of a good. As evidence I submit that any economy with superior information, ability or morality results in superior economic performance.
Even with perfect (and uniform) morality, the desires would still be subjective. 2)
Value may be personally subjective but a market value is an objective phenomena in a free market because no person directly determines it. Over time market values approach a long-term equilibrium. That long-term equilibrium is determined entirely by objective economic law. In this sense it is objective.
It is objective, in that sense, yes. (More accurately, intersubjectively valid) But you can't say that's an intrinsic value, it's just an average of people's subjective valuations. 3) Intrinsic value literally means what the thing itself is worth. While we say that a person's preference for something is subjective, we may also say that a person's opinion of the value of a thing is that person's appraisal of the good's intrinsic value.
Which is a tautology. 4) Finally, are preferences ever really subjective or are they simply predetermined by complicated interactions of nature? In other words, does free will really exist? Personally I think it does but it is worth bringing up because many people who believe in "free markets" have no reason to think that free will really exists. If free will does not exist then all prices are non-subjective ie objective because even what we perceive as our own preference is really determined objectively.
If free will doesn't exist, then there is little point in arguing anything, is there? |
|
|
|
I understand why the first instinct is "price will crash sell now"... but if people are worried about Mt.Gox losing this lawsuit, wouldn't they buy and withdraw bitcoins instead of sending Mt.Gox more bitcoins and/or leaving their fiat potentially trapped?
So much this. Buy, withdraw, and rest assured that you can sell later and not have your money frozen as part of the settlement. *ahem* |
|
|
|
Tesla's not going to put a Honda dealership out of business any time soon. Incidentally—not that he would be in any way swayed by this—I couldn’t help but notice that Apodaca received $8,000 in campaign contributions from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association last year, the maximum amount allowed by state law. Maximum legal bribe.... No doubt handed to him over a steak dinner. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.
Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price. Indeed, and in a pure capitalist society, where everything is decided on the market, the price of a person's labor would necessarily be valued at a fair market price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
