1) What incentive would the bank have to hold your money for free at zero reserve?
2) Similar to what you were saying about bonds, how would this be different from, or why not let the market, determine the reserve rate?

Google is doing well.
Irish Government is going bankrupt.
Just on face value, which group is being the most responsible with their money?

Is it just me, or does the idea of taking resources from one group of responsible people and giving it to another that are clearly incompetent counterintuitive? IMO, the best example of the failure of "trickle down economics" is giving money to the government. The logic makes sense though: a majority of people do not gain direct monetary profit from Google. Government likes to throw wealth around like sand on a beach. Google has lots of smart people that will probably survive a swift kick to the face, and when the government starts throwing the money around, there is a pretty decent chance some of it will come my way one way or another, at least relatively to leaving Google with its own money that it earned. So in democracy, we can trade A for B, take back A, then trade it for B and C, take back A again, and trade it for B, C, and D. And apparently, this is how you build an economy. And what do we do if people claim to feel cheated by this system and don't want to play along? We throw them in jail, call THEM a cheat, and get to take all their stuff.

TL;DR Fuck institutionalized theft.

They are clearly evil for not paying their fair share. I don't think I can support a company anymore that obviously hates police, fireman, and teachers. The government should shut them down. If not for taxes, what has Google really done for us? I mean, I use their search engine and most all of their apps every day, I even bought one of their new phones. I think it is time after all that loyalty that they do something for me! Those greedy bastards...

There are many ways to be here legally and not all of them include citizenship. People come here temporarily for work and school in addition to vacation. Further, how can people not be denied the right to vote but then also need prove that they are not just a tourist?

Personally, I think you just made the best example of "here legally" != "legal citizen", and how it can be get complicated.

No. Under a capitalistic, free market, private property system it is generally accepted that zero scarcity = zero cost, as far as "taking it to its logical conclusion". Some business models just don't work or depend on fraud / deception. Creating artificial scarcity is a form of fraud and deception.

There were many that thought that the printing press would start a revolution where no author would ever write again if books could just be printed and shared with anybody. There was a revolution... but I don't think it quite went the way the incumbent industry thought it was going to go.

THANK you FOR making THAT more CLEAR for EVERYBODY.

Just word of warning, if I ever hear someone say, "I made an informed decision today! I bought the hardware that says 'Works with Windows' on it. That is what we use, right?"

I am going to *facepalm* at them very very loudly.

Technically, "Works with Windows" just means that a driver was written. I do not believe it makes any claim to its functionality or quality assurance. There is only an implication. It would be just as informative to put on the box "Window users should buy this product. The greatest barrier to driver development is hardware manufacturers that go out of their way to obfuscate how a device works. Whether or not a device has software to make the hardware more functional is an important business decision that depending on the product will determine their long term viability. If there are "restrictions" on fraudulent and deceptive advertising in addition to promising that nothing was added to the product to make it more annoying to use or develop for thoroughly covers any remote value a product might gain from a "Works with Windows" sticker.

This is pretty cool. I hope it actually shows up on more than one product, and purchased by more people than just Richard Stallman. It is something that may or may not catch on to a certain segment of the market, and not just the Linux community. And remember, this is a standard being proposed by the FSF, not a new law being proposed.

That is like saying that there being no difference between individual liberty and liberal government, freedom for people to make their own choices about their own life and be responsible for them, versus freedom for the state to help or protect you in any way that it sees fit for your own good.

Total anarchy is not the only form or "true" freedom. I wouldn't even say that is much freedom in any sense.

It is also easy to avoid controversy by never doing anything interesting ever, but I will agree that "common sense" is a much more polite term, and probably more socially acceptable. Good call since people that boring typically have nothing better to do than to blog about how upset they got when they were accused of being boring.

Obligatory

Too bad I'll never know... not really.

this only proves that social construct theory is nature rather than nurture / environmental. People form social groups through the avoidance of annoying and hostile relationships. It does not seem far fetched at all to think that people would trend towards useful, interesting, non-hostile, non-living things. People, including babies seek stimulation for learning. A playful robot would hold my attention, and I might lose interest if I thought there was a good chance he robot was going to cause me harm.

This "study" would have been much more interesting if they had only released the video tape and not shared their opinions.

Thanks for pointing that out for all of us. All posts may be useless, but yours is clearly least useless of them all, second only to this one pointing out how less useless your post is.

Gaining an understanding of the way the network of friends morphs based on wants and needs is interesting. Using that insight to try and maintain a maximum number of friends is questionable at best. I would much rather use such information to let people know that they do not need to feel guilty about unfriending because it is normal, or if the results seem irrational we can know how "normal" people think so that we can be sure to avoid such behavior in the future, even if just for ourselves.

TL;DR Now you know if you are normal on FB. Yay?

But all bets are off if it gets them laid by the surveyor.