I know the menagerie of particles and things-we-like-to-model-as-if-they-were-particles becomes huge.
Even so, after starting my morning with an article about quantum "polaritons", I will have this running through my head all day...
Lyrics here if you don't want your friends to know you listen to goth trek filk.
keep your money and just quit driving like an idiot.
Have a look at the weight loss, financial independence, addiction cure and dozens of other "shiny objects" people are quite willing to buy in order to distract themselves from the truth. The hybrid hype (and it's all hype) is the same buying an technical solution to a behavioural problem.
Changing your own behaviour is hard, slow, and frankly, dull. The technical solution is quick, easy, and exciting, and for as little as $19.95* can be your TODAY!
2 of the cheapest cars you can buy, (one a 1998 model; the other a 2007) will get me 38-40MPG easily by just driving the speed limit, not stomping on the pedals, and not winding up the motor. Not hypermiling; just not driving like you're 16.
OK, so if you're driving a 500HP blown big-block classic 'Vette (or your preferred gasoline operated personality replacement) you're never going to get decent mileage. But, unless you actually need this sort of equipment for some purpose (you don't), this, too is a behavioral, not a technical issue.
The greatest source of conflict IS the orthagonality between Science and Religion.
The problem for most that see a conflict isn't that science refutes religious beliefs.
It cant--almost all religious beliefs are untestable. So, science ignores them. Not really anything else it can do.
THAT is the problem.
There are a lot of people who believe that you owe at least some acknowledgement--in every significant thing that you do--to whatever it is that they believe is the center of the universe.
For some, this (failure to acknowledge the importance of their beliefs) is the highest possible offence.
2x the cost of an employee sounds about right.
Load factor on that employee is about 2 anyhow, more if you include ineffeciencies (idle time between projects).
It's a wash.
Yes, I know you're trolling for the fake FDR quote. Not today.
Sure, you want to call it a contract? OK, fine--why not? All the terms are satisfied exactly as they were explained to you. You're just going to be a lot poorer than you were before you signed up.
This is EXACTLY how these schemes work. There's no deception required:
Explain exactly how this is going to work and the victim will convince himself that the scam is legit. Just like you're doing right now.
It's a Ponzi scheme. a scam. theft by coercion. a crime of persuasion. a con. a cheat. fraud. Are you beginning to understand what's happening to your money? It's gone.
You'll get your money because there will be suckers after you that sign up. They'll get exactly the same "offer" (...you can't refuse) that you got. And those will expect to fleece the next flock that arrives after them; that makes them guilty, too. So, it's OK for you to steal from them.
But, to your point, which I stipulated only briefly for purpose of discussion--is an offer you can't refuse a "contract"?
How is SS a "contract" if I never had the right to say "No, I think I'll keep my money and fund my own retirement".
I never chose to participate in Social Security, and neither did you. And I don't seriously think it's a contract, and neither do you.
But it is a scam. There are no "funds" in the trust fund. The bonds are promises of payment.
As long as the national debt is greater than zero dollars, the money to fulfill the promise does not exist.
When it's time to pay, it has to come from somewhere: Future investors.
SSA should be paying Charles Ponzi patent royalties for using his business model.
No, GP is right.
SSA is exactly analogous to this online poker game.
The "winnings" you receive from SS are either your own money or the money from the player sitting next to you.
And you will never walk out of the casino with more money than you walked in with.
It's not an "investment". It's a Ponzi scheme. And the House. Always. Wins.
Read on
No, they did not "invest" it.
You "invest" by buying stock in WMT, for example.
WMT uses the money to fund operations in their business --to provide a valuable service (distribution of goods).
WMT receives money (profit) in exchange for that service they keep some money (WMT is now worth more) and give some of it to the investors.
At some point you can sell your little piece of WMT (which is now worth a little more).
That's investing.
SSA does not do that.
You give money to the SSA (no choice except for a privileged few); which SSA "invests" by buying US Government securities.
Here is SSA's dismissal of the criticism that these securities are worthless IOUs:
The money you put in to SS is already spent. So when you retire, where does your SSA check come from?
SSA (did you follow the link?) addresses the non-issue of whether the funds will be paid back. Nobody is asking that.
The question is "where are they going to get the money to pay it back?".
Well, that comes from taxes. From the same group of "investors" (citizens) that put the money in the system to begin with.
OK, those people are retired now and don't pay taxes (just ask your grandfather--there's no taxes after retirement; you get to keep it all).
Fine--it's their kids, then. Today's retirees already paid for their parents SS checks last year. Today's workers pay for their parents now.
So, you place the bet, and if you win, they give some money from the player sitting next to you.
It's EXACTLY the same thing.
A more textbook Ponzi scheme does not exist.
same trick; different room.
via simplistic pattern matching to select responses from the hopper. or just pulling one at random.
Sophists are lying sacks of shit and should be fed slowly feet-first into a ham slicer.
With a pause every ten slices and washdown with vinegar that they may better enjoy the next ten slices.
First thing you learn when selling is people buy FEATURES. Flash a shiny object and hear "ooohhh...me want".
The benefits exist to answer the objection of their more critical nature (or their wife) "do you really *need* it?".
The $500 video card is probably just as good as the $250--maybe even better in some way.
No, you don't need it. You want it. If you want it, then buy the damned thing.
Buy your billet aluminum shifter knob and enjoy it. It's a complete waste of money, but you get to pretend you're a race car driver and it's fun. Isn't that the point?
The rest of it is misdirection by the embarrassed Civil Eng who filed the complaint.
This is just some arrogant ass saying "Who in the are you to question me, you little unlicensed pissant?"
Maybe Cox "practiced Engineering" without a license. I can't tell--where's the definition of "practiced Engineering"
Did he stamp and sign his work with a fake license? Did he hang out a shingle and say 'I'm an Engineer"? Did he charge money for an "engineering design"? Did he try to pass off his work as something other than what it was?
Are we to believe that the simple exercise of competence beyond some undefined level by an unlicensed individual should be criminal?
Hacking, anybody?
The purpose of professional licensure goal is to protect the public from shoddy work.
Bad engineering, medicine, pharmacy, accounting, nursing, etc. can cost lives and money.
If the work he did was so good that a licensed engineer mistakes it for "engineering", then the argument that an unqualified person is passing off shoddy work as engineering--and thus endangering the public--sorta falls flat.
His petition if valid (and the state's accusation appears to support the quality of work that went into it) will have the effect of rectifying an omission by the Civil Engineer responsible for allocating the traffic signals.
So, again, it is in the state's interest to encourage his activities the state also has an interest in allowing any person to point out their errors and omissions.
In fact, by preventing competent criticism of the work, the state defeats purpose of
BTW, here's the place where it says you can't do eng. work w/out a license:
Ref: 21 NCAC 56
Well?
Ah, no, it doesn't.
First--remember that the human mind is an amazing device--it can rationalize ANYTHING. I have watched cheating husbands parade their chippies in front of the wife at family holiday meals, no less. No denial is necessary if she doesn't want to believe he's cheating. She does all the work.
Of academic interest to the problem you pose, note that the accounts are initially created using publicly available data.
Anybody with access to the same publicly available data would able to authenticate as the named person.
Again, it's plausible; prove it's impossible in every case. There--see--that's not me on that website. Now, don't wait up for me; I'll be coming home from work very late. Have to rebuild a server while everyone's out.
This provides deniability to the cheaters.
Just like dating spam. Gee, honey, I have no IDEA who "Lance.Goodthrust69@gmail.com" is. Don't try that email; you'll probably get a virus!. You know how much spam is out there.
You miss the point (which is actually the focus of the headline).
The violation of rights is demonstrated in the criteria used to exclude people.
Selecting against pyromaniacs when granting access to the gasoline is a false analogy.
A better analogy would be an employer (government or private) preventing anybody from distributing any sort of non-work-related literature while at work. That's permitted.
But the emloyer could NOT specifically prevent people from distributing political literature that was pro-union.
Note again that the violation is not in the prohibition, but in the criteria for selecting what's prohibited.
By selecting against malcontents, you are specifically excluding those who would seek to exercise the right to petition for redress.
The right to petition does not stop at "If the carefully selected lies we choose to present to you piss you off, you can say something. Because we have already prepared glib answers to shut you down, and, really--if we cared what you say about those issues, we wouldn't have let you know in the first place."
The right to petition also includes "You get to see what we're doing and judge for yourself whether you have a grievance."
A completely separate argument "it's an issue of national security" is code for "we've told a different lie to everyone involved. We would be quite embarrassed if you people got together to compare notes." God help us if you actually found out what we do here--you'd be pretty angry about it.
OF COURSE the abusers of power in government don't want these people to have a place to speak, or anything substantive to say when they do speak. That's WHY this right is protected!
Who else but the people who are pissed off against you are going to petition for grievances?
And they have a right to do it, and they have a right to KNOW you're screwing them over--so that they CAN call you on your BS.
If you specifically select against malcontents, you're not protecting yourself against security risks. You're abridging a fundamental right.
Here's the text if you don't feel like looking it up. It's not like anybody got killed so you could have it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
